iris
Post by Laeserin
View thread root →
User Avatar
Monkey Pox Denier
Still, you can't take your husbands name, if you've got 'only' married in a church. You're not 'legally' married, you're basicly missing all your family-rights. For them (statists) it's the same like doing an online marriage by a pagan grain-worshipping cult somewhere in the far east. They don't accept it, it's not a 'real' marriage, it's 'just a religious one'. This is the sad truth.
1
0
Laeserin
Yeah, but that's the way it is, with separation of Church and State. Most have state marriages as a prerequisite to church marriages, to deal with that problem, but it's a messy solution. In the end, tho, the State will always want to jump in, once it's about kids and money, like inheritances and custody.
1
0
0
User Avatar
Faint Boa
The state even using the term marriage is an affront. Should at most be a matter of familial incorporation. And if you call it that, I imagine people would be less fussy about same sex or even polyamorous arrangements. Naming the civil contract after a religious sacrament is just asking for trouble
... show more
0
0
User Avatar
Monkey Pox Denier
The civil contract is the problem, the state seeing its population as their taxslaves.
0
0