Get a religious marriage but not a civil marriage?

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

bob__ wrote:

What happened to freedom of religion?

You’re still free to practice whatever religion you choose.

But the government is still free to take everything you own and hand it over to women at the slightest excuse.

Do not give them that excuse.

bob__ wrote:

A religion can define marriage differently than the government.

But the government definition is the one they’re going to use to rape you in divorce court.

bob__ wrote:

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

Hahahahahahahaha. No.

You are confusing liberals with libertarians. Being liberal has nothing whatsoever to do with liberty.

But this isn’t about the government being in your bedroom.

This is about the government being in your WALLET, and LIBERALLY handing the contents to women.

And the liberals and feminists are all in favor of that.

That’s all marriage is: a bad property contract for the transfer of wealth from you to her for nothing in return. Even the religious marriages. Traditionally religious marriage was an exchange between a man and a woman where you agree to care for her in exchange for her providing you with children of your own bloodline. But in these days of “her body her choice” she doesn’t have to provide you with a goddamn thing. But you are still on the hook financially to her. And government will enforce that on your ass even if you only have a religious “marriage”. because it’s not about justice or what is right or equality. It’s all about taking your wealth and giving it to women.

[experiencedParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

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.

Don’t upvote me, reread what Sidecar is saying or get legal tablets and start writing how you got unbelievably screwed over. And for female lurkers, f~~~ you, you know that this is precisely how it goes.

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

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?

Even a secret wedding like in Braveheart the problem is the female partner backstabbing you.

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

I’m not sure about the law, but if a lady is living in your house and contributing to the upkeep and maintenance, isn’t this cohabiting? And wouldn’t the state at some point consider you to be in a common law marriage even if you never had a formal civil ceremony?

I already bought a house, car and pension for some lady who ran off with a preacher.

Having a lady live in my house would be scary.
Not only that, but once you taste peace and freedom, it would be tough going back to chains.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Prefer Peace to Piece wrote:

I’m not sure about the law, but if a lady is living in your house and contributing to the upkeep and maintenance, isn’t this cohabiting?

She doesn’t even need to be contributing anything. She just has to be there. In many jurisdictions all she needs is a key to the front door and a few articles of mail with her name and your address to prove cohabitation.

Honestly, it’s probably better if she actually is contributing something so long as you make damn certain it’s in the form of monthly rent. That gives you a chance to claim your relationship is landlord and lessee instead of cohabitation. But still it’s better to avoid altogether because all it takes is one bitch feminist judge to f~~~ you over for life.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

Anytime you have ANYTHING to do with a woman you are asking for trouble.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110605171009AAlNqej

View post on imgur.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

Understand ? There is no loophole.There is no way around.

Blackhawk helicopter laying a minefield from the air

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[Enjoy The DeclineParticipant 1719]

MgtowWave wrote:

Anytime you have ANYTHING to do with a woman you are asking for trouble.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110605171009AAlNqej

Man, that is just screwed up. Screwing over a guy who would help her out for free like that. Even having the nerve to posting it on yahoo answers thinking that people would think that she is thinking rationally.

"Question everything" - Albert Einstein

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Enjoy The Decline wrote:

Man, that is just screwed up. Screwing over a guy who would help her out for free like that. Even having the nerve to posting it on yahoo answers thinking that people would think that she is thinking rationally.

AWALT.

[OldBillParticipant]

bob__ wrote:

So what about this guy?

A Friend Of A Friend story without sources or cites posted by some anonymous guy on an internet board? Really? You actually want to believe that? You want to risk marrying because of that?

Now, it could have happened. He could have had the religious-only ceremony in some jurisdiction that has or had no common law marriage or palimony statutes, he could have co-habitated with her for some period of time, and he could have gotten away scot-free in the divorce. There is a possibility it could have happened, but the chances are growing smaller every year.

Any of the loopholes remaining are tiny and governments are busily making them tinier yet. Odds are you aren’t going to find one you can exploit and, if you do, the odds are good they’ll close it sooner than later.

Marriage is too risky. Co-habitation is too risky. Women are too risky. It’s best to avoid all three.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Author]

Posts