On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> > My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
> lly say the wife was married to the man.
> >
> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
> better.
>
> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>
> There are a few thousand similar examples.

Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article. He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of ignorance.

On 3/24/2022 8:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:15:32 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 12:29:41 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:08:55 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:34:07 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trip I took on Sunday was up to Reno via car rather than a bike ride, It was to take out a marriage license and remarry my ex-wife with whom we have been living together for the last six years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My brother and his fourth wife live in Reno and they have a new house under construction. That is being held up by not being able to get the lathe used for the plaster and lathe exterior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His latest wife was a nurse that ran the diabetes clinic and is extremely orderly so she had me make appointments for everything when I would normally have winged it. After all, Reno is the place where thousands of people do to get married. I had an appointment to get the marriage license at 3 pm but as usual my wife couldn't get ready until 1/2 hours after our expected start time. Then we had to stop at a Sonic hamburger place east of Sacramento she knew because it had clean bathrooms. We also bought a hamburger. They are pretty good since everything that goes into making them is fresh today. Nothing is ever frozen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Them when it appeared that we would be just on time the Maps App changed North 9th St. to South 9th St. and I couldn't find the damned building. Luckily my brother was there and finally talked us into the correct location. I sure as hell don't know why I needed an appointment since you could hear a pin drop in that building. The only ones there were two clerks and Ann and I. We then proceeded to the marriage chapel and were properly married for the second time. We had a hard time keeping straight faces since we'd already gone through the "or worse" part and survived it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the way out there was another couple that had just been married that were older than Ann and I. The reverend told us that people were waiting to get married until they both received their social security these days because most people work and want their own income. If you are married before drawing SS you get less as a married couple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brother Bob then took us down to his house under construction to show it off. One thing that stood out is that they now plumb these places with clear plastic water tubes rather than piping. It is my belief that this makes the water facets etc. silent in use. I have a dishwasher that is connected via a plastic tube and you can't hear it working unless you stand adjacent and listen hard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We then went out to dinner at a local high end restaurant. I had a bottle of Champaign that Ann had gotten as a present at some time. It was made in a winery in Livermore that is known for making barely so-so wine. But that was the best Champaign I hade ever drank. For company parties I used to buy very expensive Champaign so I did have plenty of comparisons. My brother the wine connoisseur said that winery was known for that great Champaign. Since I had ridden there many times on rides with friends I now know what to bring back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next morning we attempted to fill up again but it was one of those places that you had to guess how much you needed and pay for it prior to pumping. Well, I guessed low since the price there was only a quarter less than in California.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trip home was uneventful other than the traffic which believes in driving 90 mph in 65 mph zones. I think that I'm going to look into suing California for everything they have. They are willing to seize your car and put you in jail overnight for having a blood alcohol level of 0.8 on the grounds that you are a public threat (most people can hardly even feel that much alcohol) but they are willing to do absolutely nothing about people driving 25 mph over the speed limit and now even trucks are driving 70 mph when the speed limit is 55. In the unusual case they arrest someone for drunk driving it is because they are speeding or weaving all over the road. So why not the people that are speeding and weaving all over the road without alcohol in their system? 3,600 people are killed each year from speeding and it is almost always signed off as drunk driving and not speeding and reckless driving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arrived home and the cat was mad at me for leaving her alone for a day so she ignored me while purring up a storm for the wife.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny thing, while getting the marriage license apparently you can legally change your name to something else. I considered changing mine to Frank Kragowski so that I could post conservative ideas under that name and lead Frank on to suicide.
>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity and not to start an argument. Why Reno to get
>>>>>>> married? Or to put it the other way, why not California?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you been gone from the USA that long John? I am sure even when you were just a wee kid John, the laws in Vegas, and I presume all of Nevada, were instant marriage. Zero waiting period for marriage license from the state. Maybe an official marriage license from the state was not even necessary. Just have a preacher, shaman, voodoo doctor, medical doctor, insurance salesman, hotdog vendor, taxi driver, pronounce you man and wife. You could fly or drive into Vegas (Nevada too I presume) and get married right at the airport or at a shop along the strip and be newlyweds by the time you pulled into the hotel parking lot and booked the Honeymoon Suite. I am making up the assumption that to book the Honeymoon Suite you had to be a married couple. Ha Ha. Since Tommy boy lives in the Oakland area, I guess Reno is the closest place in Nevada for him to be an official man and wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes. I was never married in the U.S. My first wife I married in
>>>>> Japan and the second I married in Thailand.
>>>>>
>>>>> But more to the point, I keep reading about all the freedom that y'all
>>>>> have back there, " "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as
>>>>> the song has it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you even need a government license to marry?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Because the government, federal and state, write laws that only apply to people if they are married. Laws regarding inheritances and/or trusts are different if single or married. So you need the government to officially say you are married or not. Government issued marriage license. Kind of like driving. Whether you can actually drive or not is irrelevant. You just got to have one of the 50 states officially issue you a drivers license. Then you can drive anywhere in the USA. And many foreign countries too. You got to have the government say you are married. Whether you love, like, hate the person you are married to is irrelevant. Whether you cheat on and steal from your spouse, irrelevant. Just got to have the government issued piece of paper. And because the USA is now a devil worshipping satanic cult controlled by Nazi Jews with space lasers, you do not even have to be married in a church anymore. Many different people can officially marry you in accordance
>>>> with the government.
>>>>
>>> I am inclined to think your argument is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Firstly "Marriage Licenses" were issued in the American Colonies in
>>> the earliest days. I believe from 1741 the colony of North Carolina
>>> took judicial control over marriages.
>>
>> John, are you aware the country of Great Britain, United Kingdom, England, however you want to say it, has an OFFICIAL religion.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
>>
>> Church of England. Good name for the official church of England. Nice and succinct. And you may or may not be aware that the USA colonies before 1776 were colonies of England. England was their mother so to speak. I do not know exactly how England ran its marriages back in 1741, whether they had to be church approved or not. But if so, it seems kind of logical for England's colonies, which also had the Church of England as their official church, would do the same thing as done in England. So if Church of England was the official church of England and all its colonies, having the states/colonies/government do this work is logical. They are the same thing essentially.
>>
>> But here in the USA, after 1776, we had to separate the church and government. So marriage ceremonies are performed in churches. Or before a judge. Or in a kiosk at the Las Vegas airport. And the government issues a license for legal reasons. As Andy said property rights. I said inheritance. Which is property too.
>
> Yup, I am acquainted with the Church of England, and the background
> reasons for it's forming. (Which were far more complex then Henry
> wanting a divorce).
>
> But the basic reason for the early settlements in N. America, i.e. the
> Puritans, was because they didn't agree with the English Church.
>

On 3/24/2022 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> officially
>> say the wife was married to the man.
>
> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> license ~ noun
> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>
> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> "license". In both Japan and Thailand where I actually got married you
> simply went to the local government office and registered the fact.
> And yes, as in all government offices there was a fee. 25 cents, in
> U.S. currency for my Thai registration.
>

These are trifling differences of practice within the
principle of public declaration of a marriage contract.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/25/2022 12:28 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> officially
>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> license ~ noun
>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>
>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> "license"
>
> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
or not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>
> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not. Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> . In both Japan and Thailand where I actually got married you
>> simply went to the local government office and registered the fact.
>> And yes, as in all government offices there was a fee. 25 cents, in
>> U.S. currency for my Thai registration.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

+1

Similarly if one loses a physical paper passport, there's no
change to one's citizenship.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:40:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 12:28 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>> Really?
> >>>>
> >>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> John B.
> >>>
> >>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >> officially
> >>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >> license ~ noun
> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>
> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >> "license"
> >
> > In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> or not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >
> > Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not. Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > . In both Japan and Thailand where I actually got married you
> >> simply went to the local government office and registered the fact.
> >> And yes, as in all government offices there was a fee. 25 cents, in
> >> U.S. currency for my Thai registration.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> +1
>
> Similarly if one loses a physical paper passport, there's no
> change to one's citizenship.

With statements like Russell's, it appears that he isn't nor never has been married. Depending upon state you get either a physical statement of marriage or can have one. The marriage itself is filed so that property rights are maintained though in California which isn't a state in which w have common law property rights (My property is not controlled in any way by my wife nor hers by me, the transfer of these rights occurs usually only by death and even then I could will it to someone else.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> >> Really?
> >> >>
> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> John B.
> >> >
> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >> officially
> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >> license ~ noun
> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>
> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >> "license"
> >
> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> or
> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >
> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>
>
> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> actually tie the knot.

Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.

>
> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> identity cards.

You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.

>
> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
> bank each month.

In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card.. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.

>
> So simple.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:01:15 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> We do not disagree.
>
> Whether a small band or tribe, an established church or some
> governmental entity, the public declaration of a marriage
> contract is very important to secure one's estate and to
> define progeny.
>
> Were it not for children and property no one would much care
> who shacks up with whom.

Andy, have you been completely oblivious to everything for the past 20-30-40 years? Who shacks up with who is a daily conversation for most politicians. We have that Florida case about the US Representative taking a 17 year old minor across state lines for illicit purposes. And men shacking up with men or women and women shacking up and being officially recognized as married is a daily talking point by many. And very recently a Republican member of Congress said black and white people should not be officially married according to the Federal government. States should decide if different races can marry or not. Seems to me shacking up with whom is a daily topic of conversation.

>
> (A case could be made that publicly defining pairings
> should, in theory, reduce homicide in lovers' triangles.
> That's a social benefit. Theory and practice, as always, may
> differ)

WOAH!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!! Now Andy, I will admit we (ME) do go off topic a bit in these discussions. But "homicide in lovers' triangles" is maybe a little out there. As in over the wall, across the pond, jump the creek, swim across the ocean, climb atop the mountain, out there. I'm not sure "homicide in lovers' triangles" fits in a bicycling discussion. Unless they were bicyclists and RAAM or Tour racers and used a Park pedal wrench or chain whip in the act. Maybe Fox will license this and make a TV series on it.

> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:04:44 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> > My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
> lly say the wife was married to the man.
> >
> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
> better.
>
> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>

Maybe I missed something, but your link had nothing at all to do with property rights and what happens to the woman and kids after death of the husband. Whether she keeps the property of the husband or whether she and the kids are passed onto the dead husband relatives. Nothing really law based in your link. Just how the marriage ceremony is handled. Your link did talk about how in old Roman times the woman ran the husband's personal life supposedly and ran the house. But that is a bit different than saying she owned the house and the man's horses and business if he died at the local bar or brothel.

My point was in the 1600-1700-1800s or so, the western world became more law based. Legal laws. Less monarch, king, dictator, tyrant ruled. Less this is the local custom so this is how its done. So property rights of men, women, widows, children, etc. needed to be clarified. Thus the need for marriage licenses and laws regarding inheritances. And other stuff too.

> There are a few thousand similar examples.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/22/2022 3:58 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Just out of curiosity and not to start an argument. Why Reno to get
> married? Or to put it the other way, why not California?

He wanted a trip to Reno. He could have went to the courthouse in his
county and paid $75 (plus the license fee) to get married by a County
Deputy Marriage Commissioner. See
<https://acgov.org/auditor/clerk/ceremony.htm>.

On 3/25/2022 5:01 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:01:15 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> We do not disagree.
>>
>> Whether a small band or tribe, an established church or some
>> governmental entity, the public declaration of a marriage
>> contract is very important to secure one's estate and to
>> define progeny.
>>
>> Were it not for children and property no one would much care
>> who shacks up with whom.
>
> Andy, have you been completely oblivious to everything for the past 20-30-40 years? Who shacks up with who is a daily conversation for most politicians. We have that Florida case about the US Representative taking a 17 year old minor across state lines for illicit purposes. And men shacking up with men or women and women shacking up and being officially recognized as married is a daily talking point by many. And very recently a Republican member of Congress said black and white people should not be officially married according to the Federal government. States should decide if different races can marry or not. Seems to me shacking up with whom is a daily topic of conversation.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> (A case could be made that publicly defining pairings
>> should, in theory, reduce homicide in lovers' triangles.
>> That's a social benefit. Theory and practice, as always, may
>> differ)
>
> WOAH!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!! Now Andy, I will admit we (ME) do go off topic a bit in these discussions. But "homicide in lovers' triangles" is maybe a little out there. As in over the wall, across the pond, jump the creek, swim across the ocean, climb atop the mountain, out there. I'm not sure "homicide in lovers' triangles" fits in a bicycling discussion. Unless they were bicyclists and RAAM or Tour racers and used a Park pedal wrench or chain whip in the act. Maybe Fox will license this and make a TV series on it.
>
>
>

OK, that was a reach, I admit.

There is quite a bit of theory that public marriage
contracts and officially dissuading sleeping around makes
for a more stable less violent society. Results vary.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/25/2022 5:15 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:04:44 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>
>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>> better.
>>
>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>
>
> Maybe I missed something, but your link had nothing at all to do with property rights and what happens to the woman and kids after death of the husband. Whether she keeps the property of the husband or whether she and the kids are passed onto the dead husband relatives. Nothing really law based in your link. Just how the marriage ceremony is handled. Your link did talk about how in old Roman times the woman ran the husband's personal life supposedly and ran the house. But that is a bit different than saying she owned the house and the man's horses and business if he died at the local bar or brothel.
>
> My point was in the 1600-1700-1800s or so, the western world became more law based. Legal laws. Less monarch, king, dictator, tyrant ruled. Less this is the local custom so this is how its done. So property rights of men, women, widows, children, etc. needed to be clarified. Thus the need for marriage licenses and laws regarding inheritances. And other stuff too.
>

Right at the top, define class of the children.

Here's a bit more:
https://www.sonoralaw.com/2019/09/14/why-laws-of-inheritance-were-the-foundation-for-stability-in-ancient-rome/

excerpt:
" Any free Roman citizen, including women, could inherit
property. A testator had a great deal of freedom in who they
appointed as heirs and the portions each received. There was
no hard rule of primogeniture. In most circumstances, it was
expected that a father would leave the lion’s share of his
estate to his eldest legitimate son.

....
Family heirs were a man’s children and grandchildren
whose fathers had already died. It also includes freed
slaves and his widow. Designated family heirs succeeded
without a voluntary act of acceptance. It is due to the
importance the Romans placed on family continuity. They
could not refuse. As we have already discussed, this applied
to debts as well as to property. As Praetorian law became
more developed, a praetor could allow family heirs to avoid
the deceased’s debts. As long as they did not claim any of
the estates. "

My short summation- If society attaches importance to
inheritance within a family, then it behooves them to make
marriage contracts public and define legitimate issue of
that marriage.

p.s. Wives inherited from dead intestate Romans. Just as we
practice here.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:17:59 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/22/2022 3:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Just out of curiosity and not to start an argument. Why Reno to get
>> married? Or to put it the other way, why not California?
>
>He wanted a trip to Reno. He could have went to the courthouse in his
>county and paid $75 (plus the license fee) to get married by a County
>Deputy Marriage Commissioner. See
><https://acgov.org/auditor/clerk/ceremony.htm>.

That rather proves my original supposition that you poor oppressed
people have to pay "through the nose" just to get married.
San Francisco county marriage license - $108 plus $75 for the ceremony
= $183 to be married legally. Or "live in sin" and as soon as the
first child is born your "partner" will; start receiving a "salary"
from the government.

Is it any wonder that "single parent births" as they are politely
termed, are shy rocketing? 35.7% of the births in California are to
"single mothers".
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/unmarried/unmarried.htm
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:04:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>
>
>I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>better.
>
>https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>
>There are a few thousand similar examples.

The statement that "The keys of the house were then delivered to her"
vindictive of the fact that she now managed the house and family as
opposed to "modern (American) women" who demand a career (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/25/2022 6:01 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> WOAH!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!! Now Andy, I will admit we (ME) do go off topic a bit in these discussions. But "homicide in lovers' triangles" is maybe a little out there. As in over the wall, across the pond, jump the creek, swim across the ocean, climb atop the mountain, out there. I'm not sure "homicide in lovers' triangles" fits in a bicycling discussion. Unless they were bicyclists and RAAM or Tour racers and used a Park pedal wrench or chain whip in the act. Maybe Fox will license this and make a TV series on it.

Wait - are you saying these are supposed to be _bicycling_ discussions??

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/25/2022 3:49 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> That rather proves my original supposition that you poor oppressed
> people have to pay "through the nose" just to get married.
> San Francisco county marriage license - $108 plus $75 for the ceremony
> = $183 to be married legally.

Not that much in Tom's county. He certainly spent around that much
driving to Reno and back on fuel, food, and the cost of the wedding. He
went to Reno because he wanted to, not to save money.

> Or "live in sin" and as soon as the
> first child is born your "partner" will; start receiving a "salary"
> from the government.

Hmm, how does that salary thing work?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:33:49 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/24/2022 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> officially
>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>
>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> license ~ noun
>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>
>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> "license". In both Japan and Thailand where I actually got married you
>> simply went to the local government office and registered the fact.
>> And yes, as in all government offices there was a fee. 25 cents, in
>> U.S. currency for my Thai registration.
>>
>
>These are trifling differences of practice within the
>principle of public declaration of a marriage contract.

But in the examples I gave there was no "Public" declaration (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/25/2022 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:33:49 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2022 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>> officially
>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>
>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>> license ~ noun
>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>
>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>> "license". In both Japan and Thailand where I actually got married you
>>> simply went to the local government office and registered the fact.
>>> And yes, as in all government offices there was a fee. 25 cents, in
>>> U.S. currency for my Thai registration.
>>>
>>
>> These are trifling differences of practice within the
>> principle of public declaration of a marriage contract.
>
> But in the examples I gave there was no "Public" declaration (:-)
>

If you registered at a government office it's a public
record, just as a real estate transaction.

Not different from Europe for a few hundred years when the
contract would be noted, along with births and deaths, in
the annals of the neighborhood church.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >> Really?
>> >>
>> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> > My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>> >
>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>> better.
>>
>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>
>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>
>Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article. He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of ignorance.

And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.

But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
frequently do.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>
>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>> better.
>>>
>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>
>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>
>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article. He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of ignorance.
>
> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>
> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
> frequently do.
>

??
It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:40:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/25/2022 12:28 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>> officially
>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>> license ~ noun
>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>
>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>> "license"
>>
>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> or not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>
>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not. Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> . In both Japan and Thailand where I actually got married you
>>> simply went to the local government office and registered the fact.
>>> And yes, as in all government offices there was a fee. 25 cents, in
>>> U.S. currency for my Thai registration.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>
>+1
>
>Similarly if one loses a physical paper passport, there's no
>change to one's citizenship.

But do try NOT to lose it while in a foreign country. You can't begin
to believe the troubles you will have (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:32:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/24/2022 8:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:15:32 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 12:29:41 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:08:55 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:34:07 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The trip I took on Sunday was up to Reno via car rather than a bike ride, It was to take out a marriage license and remarry my ex-wife with whom we have been living together for the last six years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My brother and his fourth wife live in Reno and they have a new house under construction. That is being held up by not being able to get the lathe used for the plaster and lathe exterior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His latest wife was a nurse that ran the diabetes clinic and is extremely orderly so she had me make appointments for everything when I would normally have winged it. After all, Reno is the place where thousands of people do to get married. I had an appointment to get the marriage license at 3 pm but as usual my wife couldn't get ready until 1/2 hours after our expected start time. Then we had to stop at a Sonic hamburger place east of Sacramento she knew because it had clean bathrooms. We also bought a hamburger. They are pretty good since everything that goes into making them is fresh today. Nothing is ever frozen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Them when it appeared that we would be just on time the Maps App changed North 9th St. to South 9th St. and I couldn't find the damned building. Luckily my brother was there and finally talked us into the correct location. I sure as hell don't know why I needed an appointment since you could hear a pin drop in that building. The only ones there were two clerks and Ann and I. We then proceeded to the marriage chapel and were properly married for the second time. We had a hard time keeping straight faces since we'd already gone through the "or worse" part and survived it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the way out there was another couple that had just been married that were older than Ann and I. The reverend told us that people were waiting to get married until they both received their social security these days because most people work and want their own income. If you are married before drawing SS you get less as a married couple.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brother Bob then took us down to his house under construction to show it off. One thing that stood out is that they now plumb these places with clear plastic water tubes rather than piping. It is my belief that this makes the water facets etc. silent in use. I have a dishwasher that is connected via a plastic tube and you can't hear it working unless you stand adjacent and listen hard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We then went out to dinner at a local high end restaurant. I had a bottle of Champaign that Ann had gotten as a present at some time. It was made in a winery in Livermore that is known for making barely so-so wine. But that was the best Champaign I hade ever drank. For company parties I used to buy very expensive Champaign so I did have plenty of comparisons. My brother the wine connoisseur said that winery was known for that great Champaign. Since I had ridden there many times on rides with friends I now know what to bring back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The next morning we attempted to fill up again but it was one of those places that you had to guess how much you needed and pay for it prior to pumping. Well, I guessed low since the price there was only a quarter less than in California.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The trip home was uneventful other than the traffic which believes in driving 90 mph in 65 mph zones. I think that I'm going to look into suing California for everything they have. They are willing to seize your car and put you in jail overnight for having a blood alcohol level of 0.8 on the grounds that you are a public threat (most people can hardly even feel that much alcohol) but they are willing to do absolutely nothing about people driving 25 mph over the speed limit and now even trucks are driving 70 mph when the speed limit is 55. In the unusual case they arrest someone for drunk driving it is because they are speeding or weaving all over the road. So why not the people that are speeding and weaving all over the road without alcohol in their system? 3,600 people are killed each year from speeding and it is almost always signed off as drunk driving and not speeding and reckless driving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Arrived home and the cat was mad at me for leaving her alone for a day so she ignored me while purring up a storm for the wife.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Funny thing, while getting the marriage license apparently you can legally change your name to something else. I considered changing mine to Frank Kragowski so that I could post conservative ideas under that name and lead Frank on to suicide.
>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity and not to start an argument. Why Reno to get
>>>>>>>> married? Or to put it the other way, why not California?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you been gone from the USA that long John? I am sure even when you were just a wee kid John, the laws in Vegas, and I presume all of Nevada, were instant marriage. Zero waiting period for marriage license from the state. Maybe an official marriage license from the state was not even necessary. Just have a preacher, shaman, voodoo doctor, medical doctor, insurance salesman, hotdog vendor, taxi driver, pronounce you man and wife. You could fly or drive into Vegas (Nevada too I presume) and get married right at the airport or at a shop along the strip and be newlyweds by the time you pulled into the hotel parking lot and booked the Honeymoon Suite. I am making up the assumption that to book the Honeymoon Suite you had to be a married couple. Ha Ha. Since Tommy boy lives in the Oakland area, I guess Reno is the closest place in Nevada for him to be an official man and wife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes. I was never married in the U.S. My first wife I married in
>>>>>> Japan and the second I married in Thailand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But more to the point, I keep reading about all the freedom that y'all
>>>>>> have back there, " "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as
>>>>>> the song has it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you even need a government license to marry?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Because the government, federal and state, write laws that only apply to people if they are married. Laws regarding inheritances and/or trusts are different if single or married. So you need the government to officially say you are married or not. Government issued marriage license. Kind of like driving. Whether you can actually drive or not is irrelevant. You just got to have one of the 50 states officially issue you a drivers license. Then you can drive anywhere in the USA. And many foreign countries too. You got to have the government say you are married. Whether you love, like, hate the person you are married to is irrelevant. Whether you cheat on and steal from your spouse, irrelevant. Just got to have the government issued piece of paper. And because the USA is now a devil worshipping satanic cult controlled by Nazi Jews with space lasers, you do not even have to be married in a church anymore. Many different people can officially marry you in accordance
>>>>> with the government.
>>>>>
>>>> I am inclined to think your argument is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly "Marriage Licenses" were issued in the American Colonies in
>>>> the earliest days. I believe from 1741 the colony of North Carolina
>>>> took judicial control over marriages.
>>>
>>> John, are you aware the country of Great Britain, United Kingdom, England, however you want to say it, has an OFFICIAL religion.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
>>>
>>> Church of England. Good name for the official church of England. Nice and succinct. And you may or may not be aware that the USA colonies before 1776 were colonies of England. England was their mother so to speak. I do not know exactly how England ran its marriages back in 1741, whether they had to be church approved or not. But if so, it seems kind of logical for England's colonies, which also had the Church of England as their official church, would do the same thing as done in England. So if Church of England was the official church of England and all its colonies, having the states/colonies/government do this work is logical. They are the same thing essentially.
>>>
>>> But here in the USA, after 1776, we had to separate the church and government. So marriage ceremonies are performed in churches. Or before a judge. Or in a kiosk at the Las Vegas airport. And the government issues a license for legal reasons. As Andy said property rights. I said inheritance. Which is property too.
>>
>> Yup, I am acquainted with the Church of England, and the background
>> reasons for it's forming. (Which were far more complex then Henry
>> wanting a divorce).
>>
>> But the basic reason for the early settlements in N. America, i.e. the
>> Puritans, was because they didn't agree with the English Church.
>>
>
>'Early settlements in North America' were a mixed bag.
>
>Our States are sovereign within the Republic because, as you
>probably knew already, they are comprised of widely
>different cultures. The Puritans are one thing but the
>Anglican Church Tax in Virginia was quite another. (See also
>Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, et al on that subject)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:01:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/24/2022 6:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/23/2022 9:52 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:08:55 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:34:07 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trip I took on Sunday was up to Reno via car rather than a bike ride, It was to take out a marriage license and remarry my ex-wife with whom we have been living together for the last six years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My brother and his fourth wife live in Reno and they have a new house under construction. That is being held up by not being able to get the lathe used for the plaster and lathe exterior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His latest wife was a nurse that ran the diabetes clinic and is extremely orderly so she had me make appointments for everything when I would normally have winged it. After all, Reno is the place where thousands of people do to get married. I had an appointment to get the marriage license at 3 pm but as usual my wife couldn't get ready until 1/2 hours after our expected start time. Then we had to stop at a Sonic hamburger place east of Sacramento she knew because it had clean bathrooms. We also bought a hamburger. They are pretty good since everything that goes into making them is fresh today. Nothing is ever frozen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Them when it appeared that we would be just on time the Maps App changed North 9th St. to South 9th St. and I couldn't find the damned building. Luckily my brother was there and finally talked us into the correct location. I sure as hell don't know why I needed an appointment since you could hear a pin drop in that building. The only ones there were two clerks and Ann and I. We then proceeded to the marriage chapel and were properly married for the second time. We had a hard time keeping straight faces since we'd already gone through the "or worse" part and survived it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the way out there was another couple that had just been married that were older than Ann and I. The reverend told us that people were waiting to get married until they both received their social security these days because most people work and want their own income. If you are married before drawing SS you get less as a married couple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brother Bob then took us down to his house under construction to show it off. One thing that stood out is that they now plumb these places with clear plastic water tubes rather than piping. It is my belief that this makes the water facets etc. silent in use. I have a dishwasher that is connected via a plastic tube and you can't hear it working unless you stand adjacent and listen hard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We then went out to dinner at a local high end restaurant. I had a bottle of Champaign that Ann had gotten as a present at some time. It was made in a winery in Livermore that is known for making barely so-so wine. But that was the best Champaign I hade ever drank. For company parties I used to buy very expensive Champaign so I did have plenty of comparisons. My brother the wine connoisseur said that winery was known for that great Champaign. Since I had ridden there many times on rides with friends I now know what to bring back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next morning we attempted to fill up again but it was one of those places that you had to guess how much you needed and pay for it prior to pumping. Well, I guessed low since the price there was only a quarter less than in California.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trip home was uneventful other than the traffic which believes in driving 90 mph in 65 mph zones. I think that I'm going to look into suing California for everything they have. They are willing to seize your car and put you in jail overnight for having a blood alcohol level of 0.8 on the grounds that you are a public threat (most people can hardly even feel that much alcohol) but they are willing to do absolutely nothing about people driving 25 mph over the speed limit and now even trucks are driving 70 mph when the speed limit is 55. In the unusual case they arrest someone for drunk driving it is because they are speeding or weaving all over the road. So why not the people that are speeding and weaving all over the road without alcohol in their system? 3,600 people are killed each year from speeding and it is almost always signed off as drunk driving and not speeding and reckless driving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arrived home and the cat was mad at me for leaving her alone for a day so she ignored me while purring up a storm for the wife.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny thing, while getting the marriage license apparently you can legally change your name to something else. I considered changing mine to Frank Kragowski so that I could post conservative ideas under that name and lead Frank on to suicide.
>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity and not to start an argument. Why Reno to get
>>>>>>> married? Or to put it the other way, why not California?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you been gone from the USA that long John? I am sure even when you were just a wee kid John, the laws in Vegas, and I presume all of Nevada, were instant marriage. Zero waiting period for marriage license from the state. Maybe an official marriage license from the state was not even necessary. Just have a preacher, shaman, voodoo doctor, medical doctor, insurance salesman, hotdog vendor, taxi driver, pronounce you man and wife. You could fly or drive into Vegas (Nevada too I presume) and get married right at the airport or at a shop along the strip and be newlyweds by the time you pulled into the hotel parking lot and booked the Honeymoon Suite. I am making up the assumption that to book the Honeymoon Suite you had to be a married couple. Ha Ha. Since Tommy boy lives in the Oakland area, I guess Reno is the closest place in Nevada for him to be an official man and wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes. I was never married in the U.S. My first wife I married in
>>>>> Japan and the second I married in Thailand.
>>>>>
>>>>> But more to the point, I keep reading about all the freedom that y'all
>>>>> have back there, " "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as
>>>>> the song has it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you even need a government license to marry?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Because the government, federal and state, write laws that only apply to people if they are married. Laws regarding inheritances and/or trusts are different if single or married. So you need the government to officially say you are married or not. Government issued marriage license. Kind of like driving. Whether you can actually drive or not is irrelevant. You just got to have one of the 50 states officially issue you a drivers license. Then you can drive anywhere in the USA. And many foreign countries too. You got to have the government say you are married. Whether you love, like, hate the person you are married to is irrelevant. Whether you cheat on and steal from your spouse, irrelevant. Just got to have the government issued piece of paper. And because the USA is now a devil worshipping satanic cult controlled by Nazi Jews with space lasers, you do not even have to be married in a church anymore. Many different people can officially marry you in accordanc
>e
>>> with the government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And (I just looked it up) you have to pay as much as $93.50 to the
>>>>> Government for the license.
>>>>>
>>>>> And even more bizarre, if you simply "shack up" with a girl and she
>>>>> has a child she can apply for Aid to Unwed Mothers and the Government
>>>>> will pay her a salary.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>
>
>We do not disagree.
>
>Whether a small band or tribe, an established church or some
>governmental entity, the public declaration of a marriage
>contract is very important to secure one's estate and to
>define progeny.
>
>Were it not for children and property no one would much care
>who shacks up with whom.
>
>(A case could be made that publicly defining pairings
>should, in theory, reduce homicide in lovers' triangles.
>That's a social benefit. Theory and practice, as always, may
>differ)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:55:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/24/2022 5:15 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 12:29:41 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:08:55 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:34:07 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trip I took on Sunday was up to Reno via car rather than a bike ride, It was to take out a marriage license and remarry my ex-wife with whom we have been living together for the last six years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My brother and his fourth wife live in Reno and they have a new house under construction. That is being held up by not being able to get the lathe used for the plaster and lathe exterior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His latest wife was a nurse that ran the diabetes clinic and is extremely orderly so she had me make appointments for everything when I would normally have winged it. After all, Reno is the place where thousands of people do to get married. I had an appointment to get the marriage license at 3 pm but as usual my wife couldn't get ready until 1/2 hours after our expected start time. Then we had to stop at a Sonic hamburger place east of Sacramento she knew because it had clean bathrooms. We also bought a hamburger. They are pretty good since everything that goes into making them is fresh today. Nothing is ever frozen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Them when it appeared that we would be just on time the Maps App changed North 9th St. to South 9th St. and I couldn't find the damned building. Luckily my brother was there and finally talked us into the correct location. I sure as hell don't know why I needed an appointment since you could hear a pin drop in that building. The only ones there were two clerks and Ann and I. We then proceeded to the marriage chapel and were properly married for the second time. We had a hard time keeping straight faces since we'd already gone through the "or worse" part and survived it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the way out there was another couple that had just been married that were older than Ann and I. The reverend told us that people were waiting to get married until they both received their social security these days because most people work and want their own income. If you are married before drawing SS you get less as a married couple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brother Bob then took us down to his house under construction to show it off. One thing that stood out is that they now plumb these places with clear plastic water tubes rather than piping. It is my belief that this makes the water facets etc. silent in use. I have a dishwasher that is connected via a plastic tube and you can't hear it working unless you stand adjacent and listen hard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We then went out to dinner at a local high end restaurant. I had a bottle of Champaign that Ann had gotten as a present at some time. It was made in a winery in Livermore that is known for making barely so-so wine. But that was the best Champaign I hade ever drank. For company parties I used to buy very expensive Champaign so I did have plenty of comparisons. My brother the wine connoisseur said that winery was known for that great Champaign. Since I had ridden there many times on rides with friends I now know what to bring back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next morning we attempted to fill up again but it was one of those places that you had to guess how much you needed and pay for it prior to pumping. Well, I guessed low since the price there was only a quarter less than in California.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trip home was uneventful other than the traffic which believes in driving 90 mph in 65 mph zones. I think that I'm going to look into suing California for everything they have. They are willing to seize your car and put you in jail overnight for having a blood alcohol level of 0.8 on the grounds that you are a public threat (most people can hardly even feel that much alcohol) but they are willing to do absolutely nothing about people driving 25 mph over the speed limit and now even trucks are driving 70 mph when the speed limit is 55. In the unusual case they arrest someone for drunk driving it is because they are speeding or weaving all over the road. So why not the people that are speeding and weaving all over the road without alcohol in their system? 3,600 people are killed each year from speeding and it is almost always signed off as drunk driving and not speeding and reckless driving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arrived home and the cat was mad at me for leaving her alone for a day so she ignored me while purring up a storm for the wife.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny thing, while getting the marriage license apparently you can legally change your name to something else. I considered changing mine to Frank Kragowski so that I could post conservative ideas under that name and lead Frank on to suicide.
>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity and not to start an argument. Why Reno to get
>>>>>>> married? Or to put it the other way, why not California?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you been gone from the USA that long John? I am sure even when you were just a wee kid John, the laws in Vegas, and I presume all of Nevada, were instant marriage. Zero waiting period for marriage license from the state. Maybe an official marriage license from the state was not even necessary. Just have a preacher, shaman, voodoo doctor, medical doctor, insurance salesman, hotdog vendor, taxi driver, pronounce you man and wife. You could fly or drive into Vegas (Nevada too I presume) and get married right at the airport or at a shop along the strip and be newlyweds by the time you pulled into the hotel parking lot and booked the Honeymoon Suite. I am making up the assumption that to book the Honeymoon Suite you had to be a married couple. Ha Ha. Since Tommy boy lives in the Oakland area, I guess Reno is the closest place in Nevada for him to be an official man and wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes. I was never married in the U.S. My first wife I married in
>>>>> Japan and the second I married in Thailand.
>>>>>
>>>>> But more to the point, I keep reading about all the freedom that y'all
>>>>> have back there, " "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as
>>>>> the song has it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you even need a government license to marry?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Because the government, federal and state, write laws that only apply to people if they are married. Laws regarding inheritances and/or trusts are different if single or married. So you need the government to officially say you are married or not. Government issued marriage license. Kind of like driving. Whether you can actually drive or not is irrelevant. You just got to have one of the 50 states officially issue you a drivers license. Then you can drive anywhere in the USA. And many foreign countries too. You got to have the government say you are married. Whether you love, like, hate the person you are married to is irrelevant. Whether you cheat on and steal from your spouse, irrelevant. Just got to have the government issued piece of paper. And because the USA is now a devil worshipping satanic cult controlled by Nazi Jews with space lasers, you do not even have to be married in a church anymore. Many different people can officially marry you in accordance
>>>> with the government.
>>>>
>>> I am inclined to think your argument is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Firstly "Marriage Licenses" were issued in the American Colonies in
>>> the earliest days. I believe from 1741 the colony of North Carolina
>>> took judicial control over marriages.
>>
>> John, are you aware the country of Great Britain, United Kingdom, England, however you want to say it, has an OFFICIAL religion.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
>>
>> Church of England. Good name for the official church of England. Nice and succinct. And you may or may not be aware that the USA colonies before 1776 were colonies of England. England was their mother so to speak. I do not know exactly how England ran its marriages back in 1741, whether they had to be church approved or not. But if so, it seems kind of logical for England's colonies, which also had the Church of England as their official church, would do the same thing as done in England. So if Church of England was the official church of England and all its colonies, having the states/colonies/government do this work is logical. They are the same thing essentially.
>>
>> But here in the USA, after 1776, we had to separate the church and government. So marriage ceremonies are performed in churches. Or before a judge. Or in a kiosk at the Las Vegas airport. And the government issues a license for legal reasons. As Andy said property rights. I said inheritance. Which is property too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Earlier, the Church was, I believe the first to issue such a document,
>>> by an English speaking country, in 1100-something.
>>>
>>> The earliest references I can find was the publishing, or announcement
>>> of, "Banns", the announcement that A and B planned to marry, by the
>>> Church.
>>>
>>> Funny, the Asian countries I've lived in don't require a "Marriage
>>> Licence", per se, but do require you to register the marriage with the
>>> government office and who furnish a certificate of marriage. And no
>>> problems with trusts, inheritances, whatever. In fact a friend just
>>> died. His wife told my wife that she simply took his bank book and the
>>> government issued notification of his death to the bank and they gave
>>> her his money.
>>
>> License = certificate? Probably. Government does it in Thailand and the USA. And probably most other places too. Probably different laws regarding property in Thailand and the USA. And if the bank your friend had was a joint account, then his wife likely had full ownership anyway. So she just took the death certificate to remove his name from the account for legal or cosmetic reasons. But the house she and her late husband lived in may be different. Was it joint ownership, spouse survivorship, etc.? She may well have to go through the legal process to get legal ownership. Did his will give her the house or she got it through joint tenancy? Or did the will give it to someone else? Ex-wife? Children from other marriage? I am sure she will need the government issued marriage certificate or license to get property from the dead husband.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Re Driver's Licenses. There is, or was, a law that Servicemen had some
>>> period of time - perhaps one month - to apply for a state driver's
>>> licence when they were transferred to a new base, and during that
>>> period their "old" license was sufficient.
>>
>> Same here in the USA now. You can move to another state and live there for a short while and use your old license. But I am sure there are rules on the books saying you have to get a new license from the state of your new residence within so many months or so. And I am sure the cops give some leniency to enforcing this. If you are only a few days or weeks or even months over the limit, OK no harm done. Just get it done quick. But if you are years over the limit, then NO and you get a ticket, go to jail, have car towed, etc. I think with going to college in another state you can keep your old license from your home state and are legal. Even if you really live full time where you go to college. And never even go home for the summer. But after you graduate and move out of state to a new job, you will have to get a license for your new state. Eventually the law will enforce this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A bloke I knew had gotten a Thai driver's license while stationed in
>>> Thailand and upon returning to the U.S. promptly got stopped by the
>>> Cops and produced his Thai driver's license, which of course is all
>>> written in Thai.
>>>
>>> He said that there was much confusion and the Trooper even called
>>> someone on his radio but they finally let him go with a warning to
>>> "GET A LICRNSE!"
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>
>+1
>Yes, inheritance is a critical property right for these
>purposes. Do not discount the public nature of a marriage
>contract which bears not only on property transfer at death
>but equally important to establish progeny (for estate
>disposition and other important areas).

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >> >> Really?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John B.
>> >> >
>> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >> officially
>> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
>> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >> license ~ noun
>> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >>
>> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >> "license"
>> >
>> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> or
>> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >
>> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>
>>
>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> actually tie the knot.
>
>Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>
>
>
>>
>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> identity cards.
>
>You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.

Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)

>>
>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>> bank each month.
>
>In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.

Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
paid!"

As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
Paid vacation and so on.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:00:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/25/2022 3:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> That rather proves my original supposition that you poor oppressed
>> people have to pay "through the nose" just to get married.
>> San Francisco county marriage license - $108 plus $75 for the ceremony
>> = $183 to be married legally.
>
>Not that much in Tom's county. He certainly spent around that much
>driving to Reno and back on fuel, food, and the cost of the wedding. He
>went to Reno because he wanted to, not to save money.
>
>> Or "live in sin" and as soon as the
>> first child is born your "partner" will; start receiving a "salary"
>> from the government.
>
>Hmm, how does that salary thing work?

Aid to Unwed Mothers.

I'm not knowledgeable about it other then I had a bloke worked for me,
in the Air Force, that was bragging about getting drunk the night
before and someone commented that "Hey! It's the middle of the month
and you don't have enough money to get drunk". The bloke replied, "Oh
my girlfriend bought the beer", so I asked him what his girlfriend did
for work and he tells us that because she has three kids she doesn't
have to work and "the government gives here enough to buy my beer
too".
--
Cheers,

John B.