Gauging The Constitutional Integrity of Marriage In America

a reply to: macman

It's not like people HAVE to have the law involved. It's a TOTALLY voluntary thing. If you don't want the law involved, don't have it.

Marriage CAN be a religious thing, but mine's certainly not. It CAN be a contract of convenience, an expression of love, a foundation for children, a means to citizenship, a financial arrangement, etc. Marriage CAN be a LOT of things. Each couple defines their own marriage. Marriage does not have one narrow definition. And the government doesn't have to be involved in your marriage at all. The church usually requires it, however, in a religious ceremony.

originally posted by: macman
Marriage is a Religious act.

Marriage (by what ever name) is a contract. It always has been.

Primarily in most cultures women were property. Those that "owned" them negotiated a contract with another family.

When (date/time) religion glomped on to marriage, for whatever reason (some form of control most likely), is not known. But, religion did not invent the joining of a couple (or multiples).

Legal Government Marriage is not a requirement, it is a choice. No one is forced to have a Legal Government Marriage.

If you don't want it ----- then don't do it.

But, its no one's right to deny those who choose it.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Civil unions are not religious based. Marriage was about a Man and Woman standing before God and making a commitment to one another.

But, again, the Govt has no business in regulating this. It does it for control and revenue. Like with every other tax and fee.

a reply to: macman

Correction: Marriage as defined by Christians is about a man and woman standing before god and making a commitment to one another. In other cultures it is contract between the parents of the two children to exchange wealth (dowry), prestige, or social position. In yet other cultures it is a contract between a man and the father of the wife. Then there are the cultures that view it as a contract between the man, the woman, and their own personal gods. Heck there are even cultures that view marriage as a possible contract between a man and a man or a woman and a woman as valid, and no these aren't new cultures. Like I've been saying, Christianity doesn't have sole domain over what is and isn't marriage. They can view what ever marriage they want as invalid in the eyes of their own religion, but that is as far as their opinion on the matter goes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, I will except that.

But, the Govt needs to get out of this business.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well, you seem very well put together in your thoughts and system of analyzing.

I see how the 14th amendment could be tied into this. It appears as if the 9th was placed within the 14th and reworded.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people, from which government subsidies are made available. If you want some economical assistance to be made available to you, just go for legal marriage.

One thing this government is not doing is making laws against love. That would be found in the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.

a reply to: macman

Preaching to the choir. Let each group have its own definition and be done with it. Either everyone gets same treatment or no one gets it.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, I will except that.

But, the Govt needs to get out of this business.

Marriage is a society stabilizing force.

It is beneficial to government and society to have incentives for marriage.

Not only that, LEGAL is protection for individual rights and property.

This isn't a country where the woman puts the man's belongings outside the hut and its considered divorce. Well, maybe in some instances its a big hint.

If its not for you, don't do it. Pretty simple.

a reply to: Annee

The only reason the Govt has anything to do with this, is taxing. That is it.

What you suggest is Social Engineering...............executed by the same Govt that has no Constitutional authority over Marriage and screws everything under the sun. Not to mention that it also must adhere to laws and voters.

Backing up the stability of marriage and families ----- sort of.

It is an interesting article, which in my opinion fits the discussion. You may not agree.

Study: Gays Are Leaving the 'Gayborhood'

Conversely, gay people are flocking to traditionally straight neighborhoods, with small enclaves forming around select school districts. Ghaziani finds that LGBT households have cropped up across 93 percent of U.S. counties. www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Marriage was about a Man and Woman standing before God and making a commitment to one another.

To you, maybe. That has nothing to do with my marriage.

Civil Unions and Marriage are two different things. Civil unions only exist is a few states and are only valid in that state. I am legally married (and so are many people) by the Justice of the Peace and no religious words were spoken.

If you don't want the government in your marriage, then don't ask them for a license! It's that simple.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

The only reason the Govt has anything to do with this, is taxing. That is it.

What you suggest is Social Engineering...............executed by the same Govt that has no Constitutional authority over Marriage and screws everything under the sun. Not to mention that it also must adhere to laws and voters.

Yes, I know -- you fear the government.

You are entitled to your opinion.

The idea of 300 million people self governing is scarier.

Marriage is considered to be under contract law. You have to look at reasons why a government would encourage marriage and endorse it as a state sanctioned contract. Why would a society support marriage? Well, they certainly don't care one way or the other about either love or religion - well, let me rephrase, in this country they shouldn't be endorsing religion in the sense of a state created religion; however, marriage isn't a ceremony of just one religion, but belongs more or less to them all, so that sort of blows the state endorsed religion thing up.

But, the benefits of marriage to the state are as follows:

1.) Stability - Families are prone to settle want to stay in one place, create roots and be productive. This benefits the society overall by making a stable, productive base of people who are invested in your making your society a good place to be and in making it grow.

2.) Continuity - A society of families tends to grow. After all, marriage is the basic breeding unit of mankind. A stable, married couple is the best arrangement for raising happy, healthy children who become the future citizens in your society and they will continue to keep it stable.

So, the state endorses marriage to create stability and continuity for itself. Heterosexual unions provide both functions. Homosexual unions do not, not without third party intervention.

originally posted by: ketsuko
1.) Stability - Families are prone to settle want to stay in one place, create roots and be productive. This benefits the society overall by making a stable, productive base of people who are invested in your making your society a good place to be and in making it grow.

2.) Continuity - A society of families tends to grow. After all, marriage is the basic breeding unit of mankind. A stable, married couple is the best arrangement for raising happy, healthy children who become the future citizens in your society and they will continue to keep it stable.

So, the state endorses marriage to create stability and continuity for itself. Heterosexual unions provide both functions. Homosexual unions do not, not without third party intervention.

I have grief with your points. First off, marriage isn't required to grow society. The black population is throwing that theory in the gutter with the explosion of children without fathers in the inner-cities. Second I want you to PROVE with evidence that a homosexual couple cannot raise "healthy children who become the future citizens in your society" and that they cannot "continue to keep it stable". Also prove that homosexual families don't settle in one place. Basically show (again with evidence) why points 1 and 2 don't apply to homosexual families.

Keep in mind that this isn't evidence in a vacuum. You are not allowed to make the assumption that with homosexual marriage being legal and accepted, that all of a sudden heterosexual marriage won't happen anymore. So don't go down that path.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That is because the Govt has adopted the "marriage" term.

Call it what you want. There is a religious aspect to the joining of a man and woman, and then you have a society based between whom ever.

a reply to: ketsuko

Perhaps but there is a small problem with your analysis. There are no shortage of heterosexual marriages that aren't providing continuity without third party assistance. There are even those that actively decide to not have children at all for their own reasons. You don't see the state rejecting their marriages by any means. So it is then an invalid reason for the State to deny access to heterosexual couples.

a reply to: Annee

Fear and don't trust are two separate things.

Fear is mostly based on emotion and what ifs.

Distrust is knowing.

I distrust the Govt, as daily it is proven to be for itself and more control.
I don't fear the Govt. I know it is out for control.

originally posted by: Annee


The idea of 300 million people self governing is scarier.

To whom exactly??

originally posted by: ketsuko


So, the state endorses marriage to create stability and continuity for itself. Heterosexual unions provide both functions. Homosexual unions do not, not without third party intervention.

What makes you think gay marriage wouldn't promote stability, and what's so horrible about third party intervention?

originally posted by: ketsuko
So, the state endorses marriage to create stability and continuity for itself. Heterosexual unions provide both functions. Homosexual unions do not, not without third party intervention.

I somewhat agree with you about the stability and continuity part. But children are not at all necessary for stability and continuity of a couple. And not all heterosexual unions can produce children without a "third party intervention". For your premise to be true, the state would only marry people who could reproduce. There would be some kind of test or questionnaire to insure that the marriage would, indeed, produce stability and continuity for the state by creating children.

They wouldn't allow older couples to marry.

And then you have couples who don't wish to have children. They can be married as well.

Gay couples can provide stability and continuity of the state. What does a "third party intervention" have to do with it? Many infertile couples require a "third party intervention". Adoption is a great option as well.

Sorry, but your argument against same-sex marriage for the purpose of having biological children is full of holes. Not to mention that marriage isn't needed to make a big, healthy, stable family.