Should government recognise marriage?

Forget the gay marriage, or marrying a toaster...the final question is, should government on any level recognise marriage at all?

I can see some sort of civil union for power of attorney and other such matters, which should basically be a couple choosing the union (does it even have to be a "love" relationship? Why couldn't two people whom are strictly best friends be unioned.)

But ya...instead of fighting the government for opening or saving marriage, or whatever it is...how about we simply demand government drop all recognition of any religious ceremony about unions..

let the churches, temples, mosques, nightclub, etc decide whom they will marry, or handfast, or give the magestic etherial duct tape ceremony...allow for such events to also sign the union bill if they want..

So, is there any logical reason why the American (or even western) governments should recognise marriage?

reply to post by SaturnFX


FINALLY! Someone is asking the Right Question! S&F for you!

Marriage as we know it is a Contract between the State and the individuals, everyone has the Right to contract so end of story. Maybe the State should get out of the Marriage Contract and let the people be free.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Ya, I simply don't understand it...its like the state having an opinion on circumcision and giving tax breaks to anyone whom got the cut.

I don't agree with you often, but here I do.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Thanks friend, the whole debate kills me.

While I have my personal views, I'm not the judge of anyone else, nor do I have to be an involved party to their voluntary associations.

As long as nothing is forced on me, I simply do not see it as a pie that myself or the government need to stick our fingers into.

I must say, I am also deeply offended by a requirement - in my state, at least - for government permission by way of 'marriage license' to be officially recognized as wed. I refuse to render unto Caesar what I view personally as belonging to god (in addition to making the state a third party to my union in such). The fact that representatives of the churches in Oklahoma do not also see it the same way drives me batty to no end, and the supposed challenges to 'common law' marriage here seem to me to be a travesty of justice.

Be well, and thanks again for this small sanity break.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Correct.

The question that needs to be asked FIRST is: why is the government involved in sanctioning and controlling a marriage at all?

If you don't think the government owns people who marry, try getting a divorce WITHOUT going to the government controlled courts. One should keep in mind the court can forbid you from divorcing. On the flip side the government has NO control over folks who do not marry and cannot dictate anything to them.

So again, start by asking, why is the government in the business of controlling marriage? Find out why you "license" the right to use the term marriage from the government. Find out why the government has title to the corporation of marriage and all the products created by the marriage.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

Ya, I simply don't understand it...its like the state having an opinion on circumcision and giving tax breaks to anyone whom got the cut.

While I agree with your OP, I'm not sure that's a fair analogy. The point of state-sanctioned marriage is it has traditionally benefited the government and society in general for people to be 'family-based'. Circumcision certainly has no significant bearing on the well-being of our culture as a whole.

Atheists don't marry? That would be news to me. To throw religion into this is ridiculous. The government recognizes marriages between a man and a woman regardless of faith. I believe there are a great number of married people that would take exception to your claim that it is a religious institution.

BTW, friends do marry. Sometimes for social security benefits, companionship, etc. There is no law that stipulates people have to be in love to marry. Ever heard of arranged marriages? They happen in the US too, oftentimes with Indian-American citizens, Turkish-American, etc.

Your question seems to really be alluding to -- should the government grant "special" benefits to married persons.

I do not agree that the government has the right to define marriage, which is different than recognizing it. To stipulate that marriage can only be between a man and woman, one has to bring religion into it and that has no place in government. Obviously, erradicating religion from government hasn't happened yet, nor am I certain that it will anytime soon.

What I don't understand is why gay people that want to "marry" would want to call it a "marriage" anyway. I never understood why marriage can't be defined as one thing, for example between a man and a woman, and gay marriage be called something else, such as eternal union, or some other term.

If there is a difference between the words used to label ones sexuality, heterosexual versus homosexual, why would there also be two different terms to describe their commitment to another?

Having said that, I believe that any label given/accepted should be granted equal rights to the term marriage, just as heterosexuals and homosexuals are entitled to the same rights.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

Correct.

The question that needs to be asked FIRST is: why is the government involved in sanctioning and controlling a marriage at all?

Because the government grants rights to married persons that single persons aren't entitled to. How could the government control and dole out these benefits without being informed or recognizing a marriage took place? If there wasn't legal documentation to be filedm then anybody and everybody could say they were married to another, collect the benefits, etc.

Further, without documentation and tracking how could one prevent multiple marriages and therefore multiple benefit recipients?

No, it should not. This would solve all such non-issues as gay marriage, human-animal marriage or polygamy/polyandry. There is absolutely no reason for government to be involved in marriage.



reply to post by lpowell0627


It does not make sense to give tax credits or benefits to married people. All these things should be tied to institute of parenthood instead, thats actually a legitimate reason for some help (regardless of if the parents are married or not).

I dont understand why should I subsidize two people only because they are married, when they have no children. Quite the opposite, they should subsidize me, because it is harder to live by yourself, from one income..

Originally posted by Maslo
No, it should not. This would solve all such non-issues as gay marriage, human-animal marriage or polygamy/polyandry. There is absolutely no reason for government to be involved in marriage.

You bring up a interesting topic.
Why is polygamy illegal? I know a number of polygamous people whom are perfectly happy with their lot in life, yet for some reason, they cannot form some sort of symbolic unification. Should a polygamous group get some special tax favor? nope...but I see no logic in stating what group can and cannot get married..

I agree with you on that one, send it back to the church, and let them ultimately decide who they will and will not marry. Take it out of the hands of the government.