Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:58:53 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
>  wrote:
> 
>> In the US (and I suspect any country whose law is based in English Common 
>> Law), marriage is a government-controlled institution.  Therefore the 
>> government has to give consent to change who can *legally* marry until or 
>> unless it signs that power and control away.  That's simply the way it 
>> stands.  The government has more involvement than just record-keeping.
>>
>> If you want to change that, great.  But you have to make a case for it that 
>> a legislature will consider and pass.  In the US, multiple legislatures.
> 
> As I understand it, English common law did /not/ make marriage a
> government institution -- indeed, we refer to de facto marriages as
> "common law" marriages. The marriage license requirement is a more
> recent big-government nanny-state power grab.
> 
Marriage is religious activity.  Secular government had to pass statute
laws to issue marriage certificates and authorise non-priests to conduct
marriages.

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32