(As seen on Facebook)
Utahns above any other state should be familiar with the history of marriage within the United States as it has been a central figure in many of the important evolutions of marriage laws in the US.
Monogamy became an established principle somewhere between the 6th and 9th centuries in European countries due to pressure from the Catholic Church. Fidelity was not an expectation, but rather promiscuity by the male partner.
1215 - The Catholic Church declares that partners had to publicly post notice of impending marriage. This is the first form of marriage licenses, but it wasn't until the 1500s that any documentation was needed and largely involved the transfer of property rights and social power. It stays this way for the next 300 years.
16th Century- The Protestant Reformation establishes rules for marriage and it first becomes an official function of the government, claiming marriage was a wordly thing, not a church function.
1620 - The Mayflower arrives in what would become the United States and brings with it Puritan ideas of marriage being a civil contract, not a religious ceremony.
1724 - Article VIII of Louisiana outlaws marriage between slaves.
1769 - American colonies establish their first marriage laws. By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.
1787 - The US constitution is ratified, but makes no mention of marriage or family, despite the Puritan belief
1830 to 1890 - Women are granted the right to own property in their own name, and not under their husband. This occurs state by state starting in Mississippi.
1855 - Missouri v. Celia declares that it is legal for a slave owner to rape his black slaves.
1862- Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed by Abraham Lincoln. It specifically targeted a group of citizens largely of the Utah territory for their marriage practice of polygamy.
1865- Mississippi makes it illegal for blacks to marry whites, punishable by life in prison.
1875 - Page Act bans the immigration of East Asian women to the United States or its territories so that the Asian male immigrants providing cheap labor on the transcontinental railroad could not establish families.
1880 - age of consent was established to be age 10. Only applied to girls.
1882 - Edmunds Act makes polygamy a felony. I
... keep reading on reddit ➡
June 26th, 2019- I eat a delicious garlic and herb breaded pork chop dipped in garlic aioli for dinner and later have some makeshift smores by dipping graham crackers in marshmallow fluff, and then into chocolate chips.
what a great day, june 26th
I am out of the loop because I live in Canada. But I keep seeing all these posts on social media regarding abortion and birth control laws in the United states. Are they banning one or both of those or cutting funding for it? And more importantly why would they do this?Can someone fill me in?
Examples of 2 articles I've seen; and I've seen multiple tweets about abortion in the United states lately
https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-bans-states-roe-wade-supreme-court-20190511-story.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnation%2Fla-na-abortion-bans-states-roe-wade-supreme-court-20190511-story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp%23referrer%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%26amp_tf%3DFrom%2520%25251%2524s
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47066307
I'm Indian. I want to marry my cousin, who is a US Citizen. Cousin marriage is illegal in her state (Minnesota). If we get married in India, will it be recognised/legal in the US?
After the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, the debate on gun control policy has once again resurfaced in the public purview.
In Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine has pushed for the passage of a so-called "Red Flag" law. These are "state laws that authorize courts to issue a special type of protection order, allowing the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from people who are deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others." An example of a state with a current Red Flag law is Oregon:
>Oregon’s Red Flag law requires a fairly simple process. The first step is for a concerned family member, household member, or law enforcement officer to ask the court for an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), which will remove a weapon, or a concealed handgun license, from an individual who is at risk for suicide or is a danger to others. An Order also prevents the person from buying additional guns for a one year period. The law is nicknamed “Red Flag Law” for when a person exhibits a ‘red flag’ or other indicator that they may be a harm to themselves, or others. It is one of the few tools that family and household members have to quickly remove a weapon from somebody who is at risk.
Other states include Florida and Maryland. However, there has been some issues raised regarding these laws.
How do these laws interact with the Constitutional right to bear arms and to avail of due process?
(This topic was orignially submitted by u/Young_Dweezy.)
When you give up your right to have weapons.
You open yourself up for all kinds of abuse and tyranny.
I believe the cost of violent gun crimes is worth it to keep our country defended.
Even from itself.
An ideal situation would be gun education and a change in the violent tendencies of our citizens, but until that day comes.
People should be able to level the playing field.
The death penalty is not only extremely immoral, but it also gives the criminal 0 chance to change, is unnecessary to “protect society”, and never makes the family of the victim feel that “justice” has been served.
First off, killing someone because they killed another is the biggest non sequitur ever. It literally makes no sense; killing is bad so if you kill someone, we’ll kill you...? What? How does that teach society that killing is bad?
Second, it has never, ever worked as a deterrent. Obviously, lots of people still commit murder and other awful crimes. The death penalty hasn’t stopped any of the mass shooters in the last five years.
In many cases, it’s about race. Texas performs over 200 executions every year, most of which involve a black criminal and a majority white jury. White juries are far more likely to call for the death penalty on a black criminal, especially in the south.
The death penalty absolutely falls under the Constitution’s “cruel and unusual” wording. Being fried to death is a chair is unusual. Hanging or shooting someone is cruel. It’s extremely disturbing how much people seem to enjoy the physical pain of others.
In the 21st century, there is 0 logical or moral explanation for the death penalty’s continuance. It is evil, unconstitutional, and produces little to no benefit, at the cost of an additional human life.
