One of my favorite movies!

And speaking of THAT pistol, here's one from my collection, .58 cal double barrels! http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN...

I like your hat, AA9VE! reminds me of the character
"mississippi" in John Wayne's Eldorado! -- j

and that accentuates the founders' intention that
the States differentiate themselves at will, affording
the people choices for living circumstances -- it's a
very fine idea, don't you think? -- j

then, if we look at value, two groups appear at once:::

first, biological parents, established by nature as
one man and one woman, or *at least* this 1+1.....

second, devoted personal unions, established by
nature as *at least* two people.....

IF the foundation of society is the family, as many
think it is, then -- whether by God or man -- these
two types might be parts of that foundation, yes? -- j

in tennessee, there is a provision which allows the
inheritors to become "joint tenants with rights of
survivorship" to accomplish the same sort of thing.
under "JTWROS," the inheritors are co-owners
while the "previous owner(s)" is/are still alive -- so
that there is general partnership in the estate......
it works. -- j

I'm ok with that, but I stop after "between two people."

Y'know, if the 'contract' were between me and my insurance company, who would be stupid to cover me or my car if I couldn't demonstrate 'driving proficiency,' the State Driver's licensing might be moot, too!

But, as my 33rd Law 'states,' (oh, pun?)...

Falk's Thirty-Third Law:

"The Only Criterion for putting a Tax on something is that the "something" must be Measurable. No other reason is necessary."

Well, that explains Driver's AND Marriage Licenses, to some degree, too!
:)

Now that's a catch that even the most stone faced judge must laugh about! I like it!

Personally, I don't believe that there should be any license to operate a vehicle that I own and insure (or not), and am responsible for. Same with marriage. No license should be necessary. It is a private contract between two people ,and God. The government should not offer any penalties or rewards for being married. There should be no preferential treatment.

Which is what keeps SCOTUS a busy place.

Yes!

exactly.

Highram, thanks... that made me consider the parallel situation of 'reciprocity' between States when it comes to Driver's Licenses.

I have an NC Driver's License. I, thanks to 'reciprocity,' can take my license and car (or someone else's car or a rental car...) and drive the roads of ANY of the United States.

But if I MOVE to another state, I must, in pretty much all situations, give up my 'old' driver's license and apply for one in my 'new home state.'

So, I'm puzzled... is that a good reason for lack of 'marriage reciprocity between states' or a bad reason?

Oh, and it's pretty snotty to call the Massachusetts 'marriage' a "pretend marriage" any more than your state could/should consider my NC driver's license a "pretend driver's license," too... be nice(r).

Just wondering...

NealS.... the "as long as they are of the opposite sex..." is what's also known as "an artificial constraint." It's not a logical or rational reason for defining 'marriage' that way.

Yep, 'welded' might be a choice, but that sounds a bit more 'permanent' than many 'marriages' seem to turn out.

"Taped together for a while, at least" is kind of unwieldy, too, and I certainly haven't found a term that I think would work really well, either.

Oh, and you should also consider the illogic of 'marrying for tax advantages,' too! The illogic is in that there even IS a tax advantage in being "married" or not!!!

Silly humans...

Thanks, eilinel... I've posed exactly the same question, since the woman I married most recently had a hysterectomy long before our wedding.
Should our 'marriage' be annulled or can we just both 'fool around' with impunity as a result?

Marriage 'for reproduction' is one of the most illogical constructs that is ever offered up as a "reason."

... and the "state's legitimate interest in ... procreation..." means exactly WHAT?

If you step back a bit, virtually every problem people bitch about today, from traffic jams to w/w pollution, can be laid at the foot of one root cause: "Too many people."

That's the goal of the State?! On what rational planet?

And if it's religious 'only,' the contract (or lack of it) should be irrelevant to any and all legal rights of individuals, too!

If you can see that...

That is true up to the point and NOT beyond the point that the term 'marriage' is used in laws that prescribe or proscribe actions and rights for any individuals.

Once 'marriage' conveys personal or legal rights, it's no longer a church/individual issue alone. Which fundamentalists can't seem to see.

Personally, I think all relevant laws currently associated with the term 'marriage' should be rewritten with the word replaced with some other term or description.

There is a legal secret to avoid probate problems on an estate. The person that you wish to inherit (Inheritor) should, well in advance, file a lien against the estate in, or greater than the value of the estate. All debts must be satisfied, and the owner of the lien will realize the value off their lien, even through probate. It passes quite easily, just like the bank owning the mortgage.

Agree 100%.
A contract is a contract so long as it is between two humans, regardless of their sexual preferences. If it is religious only, then it is between the couple and their religion and cannot be litigated.

And you and I definitely agree with that!

The issue here was whether the "marriage equality" movement was a clever device to disallow all inheritance and for the government to possess the entire estate of any decedent.

I think its ridiculous that government gets to tax inheritances in the first place.

Mumps has no bearing on what I was saying ,unless your trying to just further confuse the issue. Even if you had mumps you can marry anyone you like even if they had a hysterectomy as long as they are of the opposite sex, which means one male one female. I don't know why they would want to marry anyway except maybe for a tax break. If same sex you'll have to homoiage them. It's like nuts and bolts, you can't get a bolt to go into another bolt now matter what the law says. If you still want to try you can "weld" them together but you can't marry them, marriage should in this case is reserved for one nut and one bolt, although some of us might enjoy two nuts some times. Our new tax forms could look like this, "(__) Single, (__) Married, (__) Welded. Like I said before, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Do you suggest, then, that the real object is to abolish probate as we know it, and have the government seize the property of all decedents, married or unmarried?

If you want a good laugh about the entire institution of marriage, read "Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of World History" some time.

"In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian, lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.

Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.

English weddings in the thirteenth century among the upper class became religious events but the church only blessed the marriage and did not want a legal commitment. In 1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. By the eighteenth century the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe."

"Does the surviving *roommate* now qualify as the Beneficial Immediate Next of Kin, for the purpose of autopsy permission, funerary responsibility, and the like? And does the surviving roommate inherit the deceased's bank accounts, movables, real-estate deeds, and so on, in preference to the deceased's biological family? "
No, they don't, which is the entire point of the marriage equality movement.