"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Married Couples in Less Than Half of US Households
I wonder how many of those couples counted as unmarried but cohabitating are people like me, who have decided to marry outside of the State to avoid having the State as a third party to their marriage. I hope the number of people that reject State authorization and validation of marriage continues to grow, that more and more people decide to marry in ways that have meaning to them and do not involve the State (and most certainly don’t give the State money, via the fees associated with marriage licenses, divorce court, etc.)
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
G'day Sharon Secor,
"Earle Lilly, a noted divorce lawyer from Houston, ...represented a woman [in "divorce court"] who claimed Dave Winfield as her common-law husband and won a $1.6 million judgment."
How did this happen if they were married in a way that did not involve the State?
Good Morning. I, of course, thank you for your always thought-provoking comments. You always add so much to a discussion. As I understand it, the reason the State got involved in that particular divorce is because it was requested of them by one of the parties in the marriage. While I, for example, would NEVER go running to the State to ask that they interfere or otherwise get involved in my personal relationship, other people have no qualms, it seems, about utilizing the force of the State to resolve their differences. Often a desire to punish or hurt the other person is the driving force behind many divorce court fights over property, etc.
Now, some see the role of a limited government as dealing with contract disputes. Marriage can be a tricky issue, in terms of property disputes. For me personally, I think it best not to involve oneself in a situation in which such disputes can occur. That may, for some people, mean that private contracts regarding property, etc., are made before entering into a marriage. That may mean not marrying someone you are not sure of. For example, my husband is not the sort of person that would, in the event of a parting of the ways, try to wrest my real estate from me, as that belongs to the children. That's just not a part of his personality. It was mine before we met, procured specifically with the children in mind. The ability to be fair, even under undesirable circumstances is an important quality... People make poor marital choices, or choose people on more superficial levels, or simply do not invest much thought in long-term outcomes. It amazes me how lightly people enter into serious, serious things such as child rearing or marriage, investing little deep thought. (I've done it... when I was first married, many years ago, I didn't have a full understanding of how serious a thing it was. Today, I do. Childrearing, however... years and years of thought and research. Decades worth.)
Of course, culturally we view marriage differently than we have in times past, more open-ended, more along the serial monogamy lines than a life long commitment. It may be best for serial monogamists to stick with living together, as it is easier to dissolve. Of course, how people arrange their personal lives is none of my business. I, however, do make the distinction between the two types of relationships... marriage is a different thing for me. And, I choose not to involve the State, not now and not in the future. My husband isn't inclined to such things either. And, he also knows that, even if he did lose his mind and decide to run to the State to solve a dispute involving me, it would do him no good, because I would refuse to participate or comply anyway. And, the likelihood of our local law enforcement dragging me into divorce court in chains and at gunpoint (the only way I'd ever make it there) is very, very, slim. They have far better things to do with their time and resources, HA HA HA.
Enjoy the day. Always a pleasure to hear from you. And, I was also well aware of the origin of marriage licenses in the US. Fascinating, isn't it? Thanks for pointing that out to people who didn't yet know that.
Best Regards...
An aside.
Ever see the modern-day legal definition of "marriage license"? Well, actually, it is the very same definition found in Henry Black's first edition, A Dictionary of Law (1891), a hundred years earlier, on page 757; no change, not one word[1].
Marriage license. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 973 [Emphasis added]
And what, according to this same source, is "intermarry"?
Intermarriage. See Miscegenation.
Okay, we will.
Miscegenation. Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Ibid., page 999 [Emphasis added]
Formerly?
Miscegenation. Mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races; as between a white person and a negro. A Dictionary of Law (c.1891) page 778
Yep, "formerly" it did; that's right. Should make one wonder what the term "miscegenation" applies to now, "legally" speaking, should it not? Well, now it only applies to "mixture of races", and not the "marriage between persons of different races". That being the case, why has the legal definition of "marriage license" never been changed to reflect this, e.g. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to marry?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
[1] However, by 1910, Henry Black's second legal dictionary, A Law Dictionary, page 762, added this, "By statute in some jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage," and remains attached to the legal definition of "marriage license" to this day, word for word.
Greetings and salutations Sharon Secor,
As always your reply is friendly, polite and thoughtful, (not to mention complimentary), and is, therefore, a pleasure to read.
Regarding my question. Although I can appreciate your answer, here is what I was fishing for. Did you know that a man (or woman) who has withdrawn from membership in the political association, (i.e. seceded), is considered to be "civilly dead"?
civil death. Law. The change of status of a person equivalent in its legal consequences to natural death. ~ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, pg. 151
Civil death. The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost [or given up by choice] all civil rights [but not his or her natural rights] and as to them is considered civilly dead. …persons…declared civilly dead…means that certain civil rights and privileges…including the right to vote and contract and to sue and be sued are forfeited. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 245 [Emphasis and bracketed information added]
Specifically, judicially-enforceable agreements [contracts][1] are forfeited, because he or she cannot sue or be sued. And, as Bill Engvall would say, "Here's your sign". Sandra Renfro could not have "sued" Dave Winfield if he had been "civilly dead"; their union would not have been a judicially-enforceable agreement [contract].
"Serial monogamy", what an interesting, and no doubt appropriate, label, especially since, as far as I know, there is no word for this multiple-marriage type of behavior. Most people are not aware of it, but there are two distinctly different definitions for the word "monogamy".
1. the practice or state of being married to only one person at a time
2. RARE the practice of marrying only once during life (Source: Webster's 2010 New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition)
RARE ain't the word for it, how about ALMOST UNHEARD OF these days.
__________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Civil disabilities. …these disabilities…include denial of such privileges as voting, holding public office, obtaining many jobs, and occupational licenses, entering judicially-enforceable agreements, maintaining family relationships, and obtaining insurance and pension benefits. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 245
Interestingly, but not too surprisingly I suppose, Wikipedia defines these terms you mentioned mostly as an imposed, not voluntarily entered into, status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonperson
G'day tzo,
Yes, that is true, in fact, most sources will define these terms as an "imposed...status", however, as we can readily see from Noah Webster's last example (directly below), civil death can be a "voluntarily entered into status"; and his &c. [etc.], means there are other ways.
Civil death, in law, is that which cuts off a man from civil society, or its rights and benefits, as banishment, outlawry, excommunication, entering into a monastery, &c., as distinguished from natural death. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
Technically, the only way the word nonperson is used "legally", I believe, is in reference to "nonperson crime" (or "nonperson felony").
"[d]esignation of a crime as person or nonperson depends upon the nature of the offense. Crimes which inflict, or could inflict, physical or emotional harm to another are generally designated as person crimes. Crimes which inflict, or could inflict, damage to property are generally designated as nonperson crimes"
However, on another level it can also mean something entirely different.
Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus. A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1143
non·per·son (nän′pʉr′sən) noun a person [a man or woman] who is completely ignored, as if he or she does not exist, specif., such a person [a man or woman] lacking any legal...status ~ Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition (c.2010) [Emphasis and bracketed information added]
G'day tzo,
Civil death, in law, is that which cuts off a man from civil society, or its rights and benefits, as banishment, outlawry, excommunication, entering into a monastery, &c., as distinguished from natural death. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
We see from the above definition that "outlawry" is a form of civil death. There is, therefore, at least one other man who is in agreement with me that civil death can be a "voluntarily entered into, status".
1. Voluntary Outlawry
As a corollary [consequence] to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying towards its support.
It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law... ~ The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer [Emphasis added]
After reading that, these may make more sense.
non·per·son n. UNPERSON; specif., ones who is officially ignored by the government ~ Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition,, page 923 [Emphasis added]
Though they are very unlikely to ever admit it, the "wise" among us know that if they secede, i.e. withdraw from membership...[in the political]...group, they will have to give up all their "civil privileges", which include, (but are not limited to), "voting, holding public office, obtaining many jobs, and occupational licenses, entering judicially-enforceable agreements, maintaining family relationships, and obtaining insurance and pension benefits", and this is why they will never seriously consider it. They would rather say, "Oh, it can't be done", and quickly look the other way.
″Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.″ ~ Winston Churchill
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ~ Author Unknown
It is important to understand, we are not asking anyone else to join us in our walk, we are only asking that our right ("just claim") to do so be respected, and nothing more.