Anthropological Aspects of the West:
SCECS and the Private Contract
Even when recognizing that the ‘scecs’ during the time frame of Henry VIII are different than the SCECS of the modern United States, it seems that Henry VIII’s 1500s reaction to the ecclesiastical was a significant moment and turning point.
Since then families and entities within that ‘scecs’ and the families and entities within our SCECS habitually argue and debate the governance, the definitions, developments, understandings of the personal relationship and the accountabilities and responsibilities thereto.
Additionally, it seems that through the centuries families and entities within SCECS have increased their participation, desiring the personal relationship to be crystallized by definition, development, understanding, with assigned accountabilities, and responsibilities through one governing document.
However, the more families and entities within SCECS have wanted to solidify the SCECS Accepted Marriage, the more the Electorate has pushed both the Church and the State to rethink the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
In that process, the argument and debate about the SCECS Accepted Marriage has become increasingly contentious. and caustic.
Personally, after recognizing there are several centuries of argument and debate, I find it interesting that in April 2017 there was a House committee in a State within the United States that passed a bill that would stop requiring licenses for the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Whether or not that House committee bill becomes law, the fact that the State authored such a bill serves as a step in the proper direction for helping citizens regain control of their personal relationship.
In other words, it is good to see that the State is beginning to consider limiting itself in the personal relationship.
From my analysis though, in about the middle of the write-up, the article provided the following: “By limiting the state’s role in marriage, legislation would allow [citizens] to structure their personal relationships as they see fit without interference or approval from the government.”
Yet, the article’s second paragraph included: “probate judges would simply record civil contracts of marriage between two individuals based on signed affidavits.”
The following statement postulates that individuals can:
structure their personal relationships as they see fit without interference or approval from the government.
However, the following statement presents that the State:
would simply record civil contracts of marriage between two [emphasis mine] individuals based on signed affidavits.
As presented, those statements seem to make it impossible for the polyamorous to record their civil contracts with the government.
In essence, if (and I say *if* because I am uncertain), if the State still retains the ability to limit the number of individuals within the civil contract, then how is it possible for the individuals “to structure their personal relationships as they see fit”?
I am advocating the Private (civil) Contact, and by its very nature the Private (civil) Contract is private.
Therefore, all I am articulating is that if the House committee bill is as presented in the article, then the bill is not as liberty minded as some might think, even though if the bill became law it would certainly be a step in the correct and proper direction.
Of course, the counterpoint to that is if the State did not retain any ability to limit the number of individuals, then it seems the individuals truly could “structure their personal relationships as they see fit”.
 Tenth Amendment Center; Alabama Committee Passes Bill to Eliminate Marriage Licenses, Nullify Federal Control in Practice; http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/04/alabama-committee-passes-bill-to-eliminate-marriage-licenses-nullify-federal-control-in-practice-2/; April 20, 2017.