We are still on H. 3427. A cloture vote failed, so Sen. Luke Rankin maintains the floor with his educational session (filibuster). There has been an interesting discussion on this topic, so join in! H. 3427, is a bill that states South Carolina will no longer recognize common law marriages. This debate has raised several questions from all political directions.
The Libertarian will ask why does a couple need to seek permission from government to get married? Why does a couple need a permit from big bro for marriage?
A flaming liberal will whine, why can’t we allow those that love each other to be married? One man & one woman, man & man, woman & woman, 2 men & 4 women, a house cat & a woman & her sister, 3 men and a cow…I don’t have the room on this site to give all of their perverted examples.
A fiscal conservative is concerned with the burden common law marriage puts on our Probate and Family courts. For Example: A couple cohabitates for 10 years and one partner dies. The part of the family with the most to gain claims them married. The side with the most to lose declares they were never married. Our probate courts are bogged down with these kinds of common law cases.
A social conservative will argue this point: Out of respect for the Creator’s most sacred institution, H. 3427 strengthens marriage, society’s foundational establishment. God even uses marriage to define the relationship with Jesus Christ and His church. Government must honor marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Because of my fiscal & social conservative leanings, I plan to support H. 3427, but my Libertarian streak does agree with the points made by those opposed to it. Your thoughts?
There will be blood tonight!
Great clip.
Kevin,
It is important to remember prior to the industrial revolution about 90% of marriages were common law. In most cases these marriages were recognized by the church but not officially sanctioned by the Crown (Government.) The reason for this is that most people had no estate of any consequence to pass to their children. The only people who spent the money to get a marriage license and be married in the eyes of the Crown were those who had an estate to pass onto their children.
This raises another important point. Marriage as a LEGAL institution exists ONLY to protect the rights of the children of the marriage. Therefore as a homosexual union can produce no children there are no heirs rights to protect and the government has no reason to recognize these unions as marriages.
The most important point from all of this is that the government’s interest in providing a legal structure for marriage is to protect the interests of children.
Mr. McAbee makes 2 points both of which trip over their own internal logic. First, he notes that prior to the industrial revolution 90% of marriages were common law and only officially recognized by the Crown. Second, he claims that legal marriage exists only to protect children. Apparently, he remains unfamiliar with the concept of divorce.
Anyway, two things happened–we got rid of the Crown and we had an industrial revolution.
His underlying point of estate transfer became moot, of course, when the English law recognition of primogeniture disappeared with the passage of the Northwest Ordinance which prescribed equal division. In it, Jefferson and Madison laid the cornerstone for the establishment of the middle class in America and, correspondingly, the increased need for a legal system to mitigate competing claims among progeny which, of course, could only be identified through legal documentation of their parentage.
A corresponding consequence of the prescription for the growth of the middle class, i.e. the downward spread of property ownership, almost immediately upon Independence was the need for living spouses to claim the property of their deceased spouse. Therefore legal marriage became an absolute necessity for adults as well as children.
Historians have understood the importance of probate records in understanding the economics and socialization of early America (even colonial America)for decades; see here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597(197501)3%3A32%3A1%3C89%3APRAASF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
The simple fact of their use as an investigative tool by historians reflects their widespread presence and sampling authority. Claims of their insignificance, particularly for spouses, dissipate among the overwhelming evidence of their presence.
The relevance of the industrial revolution to this discussion diminishes, based upon the facts cited above, to a mere footnote, but not an unimportant one. The industrial revolution spawned technologies that facilitated all sorts of legal processes, including probate. Mechanization of document processing and record keeping, right up until the present day, make probate easier and more accurate.
Nonetheless, the simple fact remains that probate, and the need for legal verification, was an important component of early America, especially because America was, and remains, a country founded on laws. They have always been important to Americans, regardless of the trouble it took them to access a court.
His wife is unaware of the concept of divorce.
My thoughts? Why do you compare certain human beings to a cat or a cow, when discussing the values of love and commitment between those human beings?