Marriage licenses are not a religious requirement, they are a legal one.
That's what I'm talking about, marriage licenses being a legal requirement, not a religious requirement.
By involving itself in marriage, the state/government in the US is infringing on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, and states rights doesn't give them an excuse to ignore the Bill of Rights.
In the US, I don't need a "friend license" to be friends with anyone else.
Marriage licenses became a thing because the government wanted to prevent interracial marriages, and because the eugenics movement wanted to prohibit individuals with disabilities, mental illnesses, and whatever they deemed "genetically inferior" qualities (whatever that means).
In Canada, this is imposed by the Solemnization of Marriage Act. In the U.S., I believe that either a recognized Church or the state issue such licenses.
I don't know anything about Canada, particularly with marriage and freedom from and of religion; all I know is that Canada is a monarchy, the monarch is the head of an official state church, and there is no constitutional separation of church and state in Canada, as there is here in the US (where I live).
It is imporant to note, however, that marriage is a legal agreement,
It's also part of something religious called a sacrament (a ceremony or ritual that members seek, are required, or are expected to achieve as a member of their religious organization for achieving "divine grace").
In the Roman Catholic church, they are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony.
None of these sacraments require a license, except marriage; this means that the state can interfere or prevent someone religious from being able to achieve divine grace (a religious exercise); since the 2nd Clause of the 1st Amendment prevents the state from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it is infringing on it by requiring a marriage license.
By involving itself in legal agreements of marriage - not only by requiring marriage licenses, but also because religious folks have to use the state-operated "divorce" court.
Even by involving itself in marriage for atheist or non-religious couples, I think it's still infringing on the 1st Clause of the 1st Amendment, since that entails laws that essentially respect a certain sort of establishment of religion or imposes ceremonies, rituals, or agreements based on an establishment of religion.
I think it's only up to the "church" (or whatever establishment of religion the couple are members of) to enforce marriage contracts just like it enforces all its other rules and penalizing members who break the rules by requiring confession, shunning, excommunication, expelling them from their church, telling them that they're going to burn in hell if they don't shape up, or whatever it is they do.
If a couple wishes to have a legal agreement, one that can be enforced by the courts, then I think that's fine & there's nothing that prevents the government from being involved in that; it's the same as a business partnership or contract, and the exact same system can be utilized.
When 2 individuals want to own 50% each in a retail store or restaurant, this is an example of a regular type of business partnership; the same can be done with individuals who want to do the same with a home, all the things they invest in to put in and use in that home, some vehicles, and whatever amount of money they contribute to this household. The thing is that currently there's a difference between a divorce and the dissolution of a business partnership; with a dissolution of a 50/50 business partnership between 2 individuals in something like a retail store or restaurant, only what was designated as being part of that business (i.e. the retail store or restaurant itself) and the amount of money in the business's bank account gets split 50/50, not the homes or cars or private bank accounts of the 2 business owners.
On the other hand, with a marriage and divorce, everything the couple owns can be fair game, no matter what it is; they have to convince the divorce court that a certain amount of money, certain items, or certain properties are off limits, and the court can utilize its own loopholes to easily get around any of that (the divorce in the movie Liar Liar is one example that comes to mind).
Generally this cannot happen with business partnerships like owning half of a retail store or restaurant & yes there may be rare exceptions, but these kinds of exceptions are things that can happen regardless of the existence of a 50/50 ownership business partnership, such as because one is suing the other for fraud or breach of contract that involved no portion of ownership of a business or property, etc.
I am aware of things like cohabitation agreements, domestic partnerships, civil unions, etc., but I haven't explored them to see if any of those fit this sort of business partnership laws based arrangements.
I'm not opposed to the state having policies like tax breaks or allowing for filing jointly per se, but I it's unacceptable to me for the state to have a policy based on only allowing & recognizing marriages as part of the requirement or qualification for things like that. If any couple wants to receive a tax break for being together that already exists for married couples, or to file jointly, they should be able to simply do it without having to get permission from the state or having to prove anything such as by having to present a marriage license, etc.
From what I understand, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion have an agreement that they can make medical decisions for each other when they're in the hospital; if a hospital lets spouses make medical decisions for their spouses, but doesn't let Jehovah's Witnesses make medical decisions for their members, and it's because of any state rule, regulation, requirement, restriction, whatever, then that's infringement of separation of church and state.
(to be continued)
