Get a religious marriage but not a civil marriage?

[bob__Participant 946]

What’s stopping people from getting religious marriages that are not recognized by the government? Just do your ceremony or whatever and not have the government involved so whatever religious group you belong to considers you married but the government doesn’t? What happened to freedom of religion?

[HitmanParticipant]

hmm, i’m pretty sure religious marriages get filed with the government as well..
i might be wrong tho..
plus a religious marriage can take a very long time to annuled/ divorce to finalize.
roman catholic divorces can take 10 to 15 years to finish ( what iv’e heard )..
just don’t marry at all .

[anonymousyamParticipant 4605]

bob__ wrote:

What’s stopping people from getting religious marriages that are not recognized by the government? Just do your ceremony or whatever and not have the government involved so whatever religious group you belong to considers you married but the government doesn’t? What happened to freedom of religion?

Nothing is stopping them from doing that but most churches need a government contract to be married (If the state says you need a contract then we will obey).

Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

[bob__Participant 946]

plus a religious marriage can take a very long time to annuled/ divorce to finalize.
roman catholic divorces can take 10 to 15 years to finish

It’s a meaningless word. It’s just to appease your “wife” since she thinks being married means something. You can always change religions or start your own religion like Henry VIII if your “divorce” is taking too long.

Nothing is stopping them from doing that but most churches need a government contract to be married (If the state says you need a contract then we will obey).

That’s only if you want a religious marriage to also count as a civil marriage, right?

http://www.goingyourownway.com/archive/index.php/t-6959.html

“Religious marriage only with no marriage license – helps limit your liability. Knew a guy who had only a religious marriage – when the wife filed for divorce, he showed up in court with no lawyer and explained to the judge there was no marriage license. Case dismissed with no alimony and no property division and no lawyers fees! Lucky guy!”

[sidecarParticipant 35868]

bob__ wrote:

What’s stopping people from getting religious marriages that are not recognized by the government?

Religious only marriages don’t give any of the legal benefits of marriage while you’re married, but still count as a legal marriage when she decides to divorce you and take your home, your stuff, your children, your retirement, your future earnings……

Just say no to marriage. ALL marriage.

[GrumpyParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Just say no to marriage. ALL marriage.

Precisely. Marriage of any type is a not a choice I will ever make again.
People can do as they please, I’m out of the game and doing my own thing

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[bob__Participant 946]

Religious only marriages don’t give any of the legal benefits of marriage while you’re married, but still count as a legal marriage when she decides to divorce you and take your home, your stuff, your children, your retirement, your future earnings……

How? Cohabitation? Then do a religious marriage but don’t cohabit.

[sidecarParticipant 35868]

bob__ wrote:

How? Cohabitation? Then do a religious marriage but don’t cohabit.

Cohabitation is always a bad idea, but isn’t necessary here.

If she shows up before the divorce court judge with photographs or a witness or any evidence that you said: “I do,” that judge is going to consider you married, whether you lived together or not. You might be able to get a cheaper annulment if it was just a short time before (countable in days) or you never had sex with her (pre-marriage or post; doesn’t matter), but it’s unlikely.

The legal system is set up to take wealth from men and hand it to women, and will use any possible excuse to do so. A “religious only marriage” is just such an excuse. Do NOT give them an excuse.

Don’t believe me? Try it for yourself. Come back and tell us all about it after you’ve been raped in divorce court.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Hitman wrote:

just don’t marry at all .

This gets my vote. If the system is so f~~~ed up you have to find loop holes to make you even consider it…why bother?

[bob__Participant 946]

Cohabitation is always a bad idea, but isn’t necessary here.

If she shows up before the divorce court judge with photographs or a witness or any evidence that you said: “I do,” that judge is going to consider you married, whether you lived together or not. You might be able to get a cheaper annulment if it was just a short time before (countable in days) or you never had sex with her (pre-marriage or post; doesn’t matter), but it’s unlikely.

The legal system is set up to take wealth from men and hand it to women, and will use any possible excuse to do so. A “religious only marriage” is just such an excuse. Do NOT give them an excuse.

Don’t believe me? Try it for yourself. Come back and tell us all about it after you’ve been raped in divorce court.

So what about this guy?

http://www.goingyourownway.com/archive/index.php/t-6959.html

“Religious marriage only with no marriage license – helps limit your liability. Knew a guy who had only a religious marriage – when the wife filed for divorce, he showed up in court with no lawyer and explained to the judge there was no marriage license. Case dismissed with no alimony and no property division and no lawyers fees! Lucky guy!”

A religion can define marriage differently than the government.

[Crazy CanuckMember 4215]

Who cares as long you have children you’re screwed.

"If pussy was a stock it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy." - Dave Chapelle

[Charles BSpectator 251]

I’m sure religious groups such as the Amish get married without any government interfering. However, it’s still a bad deal because women could bitch about something and you’d have your marriage treated as a common law marriage. So even in religious communities such as the Amish, you’re f~~~ed if you get married with or without the government interfering in western societies.

[sidecarParticipant 35868]

bob__ wrote:

So what about this guy?

That guy is wrong or is lying or this happened decades ago or the religious “marriage” was only a few hours old and the judge annulled it.

I know of a guy who got “married” in some hippy pagan “handfasting” ceremony while in the peace corps in Africa. She almost immediately split with him to f~~~ other guys. He came back to the states and got his M.D. and never married anyone, having learned his lesson. Twenty two years later she crawled out of the woodwork with witnesses and photographs of the ceremony. No license. No nothing. But that was still sufficient for her to get lifetime alimony off him and a fat chunk of his retirement savings. He only managed to keep his home on a technicality because in that jurisdiction she had to have slept in it at least once, but she never had.

So again, if you REALLY think you have some stupid loophole here, go ahead and try it, and when it inevitably blows up in your face you can come back and tell us all about it.

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8289]

That’s fine & dandy. But I recommend that you CREATE YOUR OWN NATION FIRST, ’cause you might be at the mercy of a civil court system if your spouse becomes vindictive and sues your ass.

I’ve pondered alternatives to marriage too, but I can’t think of a sure thing as long as I’m living in the USA and we all have the right to take each other to court for wrongs—real or perceived. Add children to the equation and you have an even bigger mess.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

Whatever loophole you’re looking for has been sealed up with cement and then armoured plate welded to it.

Even if you get though there is the pit of death.

ANYTHING with the words MARRIAGE, ENGAGEMENT, COMMITMENT, COHABITATION AND LOVE …. are all part of the same man trap.

You have been warned.

[Anonymous 42]

bob__ wrote:

What happened to freedom of religion?

@bob, a bunch of assholes called law makers, judges, lawyers, and executives, decided to go TURBO SCRIMSHAW over the foundations of civilization, done reprehensible opposition of natural law, thereby also in conflict to natural rights. They’ve uprooted every decent thing and perverted it to no end.
Woman=Law, Law=Rule, the “Rule” (rule of law) overrides the rights and dignity of men.

MGTOW=sovereignty! A shield of protection against the onslaught of molested law.

Women are the sole property of the government and the laws that govern therein, the only freedom is to not play a cheater’s game.

[bob__Participant 946]

I thought liberals and feminists didn’t want the government in their bedroom and private affairs? Only when it suits them of course. Only when women want the “right to privacy”. Men have no right to privacy. The government always has to know who you’re f~~~ing so they know who to give your money to.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

bob__ wrote:

I thought liberals and feminists didn’t want the government in their bedroom and private affairs? O

It’s all wordplay. “Liberal” really means authoritarian and “feminist” means female supremacist
Half of the dictionary has been expropriated

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Mr. SpockParticipant 10968]

Marriage all around is NEVER good for a male. EVER!
I am no attorney or student of law but here is how I see it. A loophole gets created when a law is written and the intent of the law says one thing and a lawyer decides to interpret the law another way and a judge agrees. You’re basing your whole idea on this. All it takes is a higher ranking judge to strike down the interpretation of the first judge. Doesn’t this idea seem like a lot of work based on something that you really have no say or control in?
Overall, I think it’s a bad idea.

She's not looking for love. She's looking for someone to finance the lifestyle that SHE thinks SHE deserves.

[MattNYCParticipant 2329]

Grumpy wrote:

sidecar wrote:
Just say no to marriage. ALL marriage.
Precisely. Marriage of any type is a not a choice I will ever make again.
People can do as they please, I’m out of the game and doing my own thing

What’s the net-benefit here? I’ve yet to see a breakdown of cost-benefit for relations~~~ that makes it worth my while.

Civil marriage, religious marriage, serious gf, cohabitation: these all fail the cost-benefit analysis so far as i can tell. So questioning civil v religious marriage is putting the cart before the horse.

[Author]

Posts