The lady at the court house seemed to interigate us when we got ours. So I had to ask if I knew her or owed her anything other than my paperwork. She didnt seem to like it too much. If you love some one that should be enough for marriage you shouldnt have to pay the 55 dollars for a lisence! Most people are just starting out when they get married. I think the goverment shouldnt even charge for stuff like this! you should be able to pick up at the DMV for free instead of the court house for a fee... the DMV rapes us enough on all sorts of lisences such as boat, truck, car, bike, changing last name or adress! Boo paying the goverment any more than you absolutly have to!
Expiring Marriage License - yea or nea?
- Thread starter WWJD
- Start date
SANDFLEA85
Registered
I mentioned to the wife we should get divorced just for tax purposes, our accountant said we lost over $5000 just for getting married and he wasnt kidding.tax return took a big hit
makes great business sense but she wont go for it
makes great business sense but she wont go for it
afterhours
Registered
the cost of a marriage license should be $10k....because when people get dicorced, they cost the state thousand in court costs fighting over property and kids....
SANDFLEA85
Registered
more like $10 because thats all you will have in your pocket after the divorce......did it twice, trust me,I know
Dino,
not trying to offend, but that is absolutly false... the idea of marriage being originated in faith based groups is only part of a propaganda machine put forth by early church working... marriage as a part of religious ceremony dates only to the 1500's....
Marriage was coopted by faith based organizations as a further way to place controls and restrictions on their followers, it originally had NO roots in faith....
By making marriage a requirement sacrement of religious organization, the church could start collecting "donations" from paid dowrys that were given for the taking of the woman... The churches could then aquire land and money that would otherwise be handed down and possibly escape their grasp...
The churches would threaten to not sanction the marriages if they didnt get "there piece of the pie", espcially when royal titles were in the mix... having their fingers in these royal bonds made the church extremly wealthy, and thats before considering they also were then able to direct the course of govt. by dabling in the matches...
Marriage was originally nothing more than a legal contract means of passing land and making children thats all, it never had a place in a church, and no place in this whole notion of "LOVE" we grabbed onto... It predated all modern religions and churches, and a religious figure was not even required to perform it....
Originally to get married, it was nothing more than the local magistrate, chieftan, or royal figure saying "ok yay, your handfasted, good job, make workers"... handfasting being marriage before the name marriage caught on...
which ironicly, handfastings only lasted, as long as the two wanted them to... if they decided, im done with you, the commitment ended, and they went their seperate ways.... it was after all just a contract in a very literal sense...
It wasnt until Pope Nicholas I(~850's) even said CONSENT mattered for making these contracts, before this parents could literaly give their daughters away to "seal the deal"...
Then, it would take until the 12th century, a good 400 years later; before the notion of LOVE even came into the equation...
which was not the manufacturing of the churches mind you, it was the bards basically singing and reading poetry about love, which in turn romanticised marriage bonds... basically, women started swooning hearing about these romantic knights rescuing damsels, and they said "HEY I WANT THAT!" so, romance started coming around...
Mind you; churches at this point, STILL didnt care about love, they just again wanted their piece of the pie... As long as their was consent(kinda)!
Truth be told, marriage still wasnt at that point occuring very often in churches, after all, who wanted to tithe the church, just so he could make sure his lands remained his, after he died.... Thats like paying someone 10% of your current ownings, so you can pay another guy 15% of your current ownings to take your daughter, so you can give him the rest of the 75% when you died... it just didnt make sense...
It actually bothered the Catholic Church SOOOO MUCH that marriages were still occuring without their getting a split of the monies... that the council of trent in the 1500's would actually specify a priest was finally needed to perform a marriage...
Basically, the church said "ITS A SIN TO GET MARRIED WITHOUT A CHURCH!"
so as soon as you make people fear for their immortal souls, they start going to church to save them!
And THUS marriage becomes a religious institution.... sanctioned in the eyes of "god" by a priest, in front of two witnesses....
The ceremony that most of us know as marrige to this day....
This notion that some how marriage has always been a religious institution is so backwards, and its directly the churches propaganda to blame... It has caused more issues and uproar that its not even funny..
For an idea that predates ALL modern religions, its amazing that all of them try to lay claim to it...
Then again, all modern religions are good at stealing ideas...
Christmas, Easter, Resurection myth, healing miracles, etc.....
All ideas which are able to EASILY be traced back long before christianity, hinduism etc. exsisted....
There you have it, why marriage as a relgious ceremony is only about ~500 years old, and has little to do with love, and everything to do with money...
even the early hebrew's can't argue as their own book specified it was a mere contract of land and money...
Old testament teachings "If your brother was to die, you should take upon yourself his wife..." to protect his holdings.... they actually taught, marry your brothers wife, so the lands wouldnt get taken by the governing body! (remember women couldnt hold property yet)
Last edited:
side note... interesting that the poll is split almost 50/50....
i wonder of the 50% who voted yes... how many are divorced, in the process of divorce, etc..
and how many of those who voted no, are married, single, happily so, etc...
just curious how much that may or may not have played a part...
i wonder of the 50% who voted yes... how many are divorced, in the process of divorce, etc..
and how many of those who voted no, are married, single, happily so, etc...
just curious how much that may or may not have played a part...
Similar threads
