Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: California presumptive joint child custody bill

Expand Messages
  • paradoxmagnus
    So why do you need a license to get married? A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL. Patrick in California ... the
    Message 1 of 12 , May 1 2:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      So why do you need a license to get married?

      A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.

      Patrick in California

      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "wlspence1" <wls@r...> wrote:
      > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
      >
      > > I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to
      > > raise their kids.
      >
      > Unless there's perceived danger to the childen---which the government
      > must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's a matter of one
      > parent inviting the government in, to attack the other parent. This
      > bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
      >
      > Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a contract, unless
      > one of the parties calls on the state to give it an advantage over
      the
      > other.
    • wlspence1
      ... Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally more important
      Message 2 of 12 , May 1 5:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "paradoxmagnus"
        <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
        > So why do you need a license to get married?
        >
        > A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.

        Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce
        the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally
        more important thing is the _state_ of marriage that comes into
        existence if the ceremony given legal force by the license is
        performed.

        It's implications regarding child custody are nevertheless rather
        limited: a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the
        husband's, biology to the contrary sometimes, and a child artificially
        conceived is regarded as a child of the marriage; that's about it.
        The latter now also obtains within a registered domestic partnership
        in California, as does community property law and various entitlements
        to benefits, rights to guardianship, etc.

        Lawyers---canon law attorneys---were involved even when marriage was
        largely the province of the ecclesiastical courts. Probably the main
        force behind creating a civil notion of marriage in Great Britian and
        early America was the property-owning class's interest in controlling
        who could inherit their wealth.
      • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
        How is getting married an UNLAWFUL ACT that requires a LICENSE? It isn t. When you get a marriage LICENSE, aren t you making the state a partner in the
        Message 3 of 12 , May 2 8:41 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          How is getting married an UNLAWFUL ACT that requires a LICENSE? 
           
          It isn't. 

          When you get a marriage LICENSE, aren't you making the state a
          partner in the CONTRACT?
           
          It appears so.

          If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
          the marriage?
           
          Yup.
           
          Patrick in California
           
          It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
          on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus
           
           

           
        • wlspence1
          ... The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children, under the doctrine of _parens patriae_. Unless one of the parents takes an issue to
          Message 4 of 12 , May 2 5:14 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:

            > If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
            > the marriage?

            The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
            under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.

            Unless one of the parents takes an issue to family court, what the
            state can do to one's children is however quite circumscribed by a
            series of US Supreme Court cases---stretching from the 1920s to the
            present---which enunciate parents' rights as a fundamantal liberty
            interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

            Otherwise, what the state mainly does in marriage is provide a default
            form of a contract, which can in fact be overriden in a pre-nupt'.
            You can for example in many states agree before marriage that there
            will be no spousal support if the marriage is dissolved, but not that
            child support be waived.
          • Frog Farmer
            ... Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human being acting as its agent. If one who didn t like being the subject or object of state
            Message 5 of 12 , May 3 11:55 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 2, 2005, at 5:14 PM, wlspence1 wrote:

              > The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
              > under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.

              Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
              being acting as its agent.

              If one who didn't like being the subject or object of state assertions
              was really serious, (s)he would not permit unqualified or unauthorized
              persons to speak or act for the state. But the decision to waive
              rights to due process is a decision everyone is free to make, that's
              for sure. And by all evidence, it is a very popular course of action.
            • wlspence1
              ... Their humanity and vitality is indeed questionable, but child protective services and the child support IV-D agencies do have their `counsel who do show
              Message 6 of 12 , May 7 5:08 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...>
                wrote:

                > Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
                > being acting as its agent.

                Their humanity and vitality is indeed questionable, but child
                protective services and the child support IV-D agencies do have their
                `counsel' who do show up in court. . . . In family court it's more a
                matter of the power the Legislature has given the judge.

                Yeah, too many give up too fast, but there are things like the
                Domestic Relations Abstention that preclude due process that we all
                should be working together to defeat.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.