• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should The Government Be In The Marriage Business?

Should the Government be in the Marriage Business?


  • Total voters
    40
No it wouldn't. Yours would open it up to local and state governments taking control of it. And if they didn't then your local pastor or some other "prominent" person would step in and try to force you to follow their way. And they need not use violence or anything illegal to do so. The only way that your idea would work is if every single person minded their own buisness. And that just simply is not going to ever happen.

Do you file to get married at the Federal level? I'm not gonna rummage to find my old marriage license but, yeah, I am pretty sure we applied at the County clerks office. Perhaps I -- due to the fact I didn't think it necessary -- was mistaken when I said keep government out of the marriage business. Maybe I should have said keep ALL FORMS of government out.

As it is now, and again, I didn't take the time to look but I'm pretty sure my Cook County Certificate of Marriage is valid, well, everywhere.

Currently you have states running around saying gay marriage yes, gay marriage no, but with the implementation of my proposal, states wouldn't be able to deny or affirm anyone either.

Perhaps my proposal is too simple to follow. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere, sometimes that which is easiest seems the most difficult to grasp. This isn't a case like say, weed getting legalized at the State level while still being illegal at the Federal, no this would be one of those laws that restrict government not its citizens.

I think that is where we've gone wrong as a country. The Constitution isn't a document stating the rights of its citizens, no, when it was written it was a document outlining what restrictions should be placed on the government.

We've fallen so far from grace that people nowadays are actually arguing against proposals that will make them more free, that will restrict what liberties our government can take with its authority...

Unbelievable....
 
Do you file to get married at the Federal level? I'm not gonna rummage to find my old marriage license but, yeah, I am pretty sure we applied at the County clerks office. Perhaps I -- due to the fact I didn't think it necessary -- was mistaken when I said keep government out of the marriage business. Maybe I should have said keep ALL FORMS of government out.

Just because you file at the county clerks office does not mean that the federal level is also not given those papers. Just because you don't do it personally doesn't mean that it isn't done. How else do you think that the federal government has been able to deny giving gays the same rights that married couples are afforded? IE: inheritance rights when there is no will, visitation rights of a spouse in a hospital, power of attourney when your spouse is not able to decide for themselves...all of those are federally granted.

As it is now, and again, I didn't take the time to look but I'm pretty sure my Cook County Certificate of Marriage is valid, well, everywhere.

And do you know why that is?

Currently you have states running around saying gay marriage yes, gay marriage no, but with the implementation of my proposal, states wouldn't be able to deny or affirm anyone either.

Nor would they be able to enforce things like I listed above. Nor would they be able to stop some private citizen from legally harrassing you if they don't agree with who you married.

Perhaps my proposal is too simple to follow. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere, sometimes that which is easiest seems the most difficult to grasp. This isn't a case like say, weed getting legalized at the State level while still being illegal at the Federal, no this would be one of those laws that restrict government not its citizens.

It has nothing to do with an easy concept being too difficult to grasp. But you are right that your proposal is too simple to follow. For the simple fact that the world is not black and white. It has a crap ton of different shades of grey. The very reason that the government is formed, a good one anyways, is to protect peoples rights. They cannot do this if you only allow them to fill out some papers.

I think that is where we've gone wrong as a country. The Constitution isn't a document stating the rights of its citizens, no, when it was written it was a document outlining what restrictions should be placed on the government.

It is also a document that states and implies the duties of the government. Part of that is the protection of peoples rights.

We've fallen so far from grace that people nowadays are actually arguing against proposals that will make them more free, that will restrict what liberties our government can take with its authority...

Yes we have. But not for the reasons that you apparently believe.
 
Just because you file at the county clerks office does not mean that the federal level is also not given those papers. Just because you don't do it personally doesn't mean that it isn't done. How else do you think that the federal government has been able to deny giving gays the same rights that married couples are afforded? IE: inheritance rights when there is no will, visitation rights of a spouse in a hospital, power of attourney when your spouse is not able to decide for themselves...all of those are federally granted.

Alright, what you've just done is make a point of explaining back to me the point I was making. That being a Federal blanket over what the State and County do. What my proposal does is take away the Federal, State, County, Township, etc.. right to deny anything. Those same rights afforded married couples today will be available to all.

What it seems is we have a difference of opinion in what a "Right" is. No government grants me my rights, I have them naturally. If you are being granted something from someone or something outside of your own personhood than it isn't a Right, it is a privilege.

Using the government as a register is taking all of those "rights" and letting the government know whom I'm going to share them with. It turns the entire process into an administrative function. You're not being given anything, it is yours, inherently.



And do you know why that is?

Yes I do but I'm not gonna tell..... :nahnah:


Nor would they be able to enforce things like I listed above. Nor would they be able to stop some private citizen from legally harrassing you if they don't agree with who you married.

Of course they would, just like they enforce any other contract on record.
Harrassment is illegal, no? Doesn't matter who it's being done to or why.


It has nothing to do with an easy concept being too difficult to grasp. But you are right that your proposal is too simple to follow. For the simple fact that the world is not black and white. It has a crap ton of different shades of grey. The very reason that the government is formed, a good one anyways, is to protect peoples rights. They cannot do this if you only allow them to fill out some papers.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, just sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees.

The world can be the entire spectrum of the rainbow, contract laws already on the books can handle the workload, or if you need to add another one or two, no harm, but the important thing is that the ability of government to tell people how to live will be lessened just a little.



It is also a document that states and implies the duties of the government. Part of that is the protection of peoples rights.

Correct and in this case as we see it clearly isn't. It is infringing on them terribly.



Yes we have. But not for the reasons that you apparently believe.

Well, it's all subjective...
 
Last edited:
Regarding the federal vs. local registry issue.

Consider marriage visas: we heterosexuals have no problem (the usual bureaucratic hassle substracted) bringing our partners to America. For homosexuals, there's simply no way to do it.

In an ideal world, (the holy sacrament of) marriage would be a domain of churches, governments would use "civil unions for all" model - and there would be no restrictions on immigration at all, anyway.

But in this sordidly real world, gay marriage seems to be the only feasible way to go - and its recognition on the federal level seems to be necessary.
 
This shouldn't be viewed as a sign that you are for or against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Only whether or not the government should be the arbiter in moral decisions involving who or what is to be considered a suitable partner(s)
There are some legitimate concerns regarding estates and children that I think would need to be addressed, but in the end I still vote that government should not be involved. Other than taxes I see no reason, and since I am also a "flat tax" advocate where everybody would pay the same percentage regarding any and all other considerations, that solves that.
 
There are some legitimate concerns regarding estates and children that I think would need to be addressed, but in the end I still vote that government should not be involved. Other than taxes I see no reason, and since I am also a "flat tax" advocate where everybody would pay the same percentage regarding any and all other considerations, that solves that.

Of course those are legitimate concerns. They would be handled appropriately under contract law.
 
Certainly in the form of setting certain age limitations.
 
Oh, so all this to teach me a lesson, huh? LOL and this was to do what I suuppose? I was using the terminology for distinction, nothing else.




Splendid, you are able to choose for yourself your own identity not have it bequeathed upon you from up high. I've presented an argument that ends the entire issue, it just doesn't have the alterior agenda attached to it. What's in it for you is self evident.




I don't know what you think you've shown but if you want to look at history, clearly the definition and purpose of marriage has been 1 man and 1 or multiple women forming social contracts so as to secure lineage. That was its function I won't stop you if you would like to think otherwise, have at it, but just know that mountains of anthropological evidence is available to prove you wrong. I won't be providing any of this evidence, no, no, fool's errands are for fools. I'm no fool and you can google just as easy as I can.

What's further, the only mention of religion that I've presented to you I believe was that some people of religious claim take issue with same sex marriage. My method pulls their teeth leaving them only a bark with no bite.

To say all I have is a claim one of which I haven't substanciated is a strawman. I've made no claim therefore nothing needs to be substantiated.




and here's the onion... Governmental recognition. LOL. Why is there a need for outside validation? Whether it is Jack and Jill or Jack and Bill all the government needs to recognize is who gets to control the purse strings upon death or how the purse is split upon divorce. I mean really, you're coming close showing honesty of agenda but still are holding back, why?






Oh you do, you're just not being honest as to the reason why. I won't repeat myself regarding the recognition schpeal, the answer is the same as above.




I would ask why you have the overwhelming desire to be lorded over?

The main and only pertinent reason advocates of gay marriage have is that they seek the same custodial and property rights as those who are freely allowed to marry today. Terminating the government's authority to dictate who can have these rights is the best solution.

Of course there is the other agenda that goes unsettled, but again that also should reside outside the government's domain.

Chez, you do realize that churches are legally allowed to not recognize marriages conducted outside their rules, don't you? I say this because a belief on your part that they are legally required to recognize other marriages is the only fathomable reason I can come up with for why you'd have any problem with the status quo (or for the status quo changing to allow gays the right to marry).
 
Last edited:
Of course there needs to be a legal distinction with regard to marriage. The same with family relations. Otherwise there's no way to standardize inheritance. Unless you libertarians want to have compulsory laws requiring people to keep a will the moment they turn 18. Otherwise there needs to be standardization.

Most states have intestate laws. This is a non-issue.
 
Chez, you do realize that churches are legally allowed to not recognize marriages conducted outside their rules, don't you? I say this because a belief on your part that they are legally required to recognize other marriages is the only fathomable reason I can come up with that you have any problem with the status quo.




You're hell bent on bringing religion into this, aren't ya? LOL Ok, fine..

Yes, I am aware currently that religious liberties exempt Churches from having to recognize marriages that fall outside their dogma and doctrine.

I also remember a time where religious liberties exempted Churches from having to hire outside their faith, provide contraception coverage, and make adoption available to those that fall outside their doctrine and dogma.

Where did those go?

Now, you can say "Chez! C3 baby, you're crazy, that ain't ever gonna happen!"

Just like someone I'm sure said before, regarding those other issues.

Now as I've said, this is a matter regarding what's the proper role of government for me. I've stated plainly what my views on marriage are but being that it isn't my life I don't have any right to prevent anyone else from doing what they want. It's this addiction to liberty and freedom thing I have, it's a pain sometimes, I know, but hey -- We all have are vices, right?
 




You're hell bent on bringing religion into this, aren't ya? LOL Ok, fine..

Yes, I am aware currently that religious liberties exempt Churches from having to recognize marriages that fall outside their dogma and doctrine.

I also remember a time where religious liberties exempted Churches from having to hire outside their faith, provide contraception coverage, and make adoption available to those that fall outside their doctrine and dogma.

Where did those go?

Now, you can say "Chez! C3 baby, you're crazy, that ain't ever gonna happen!"

Just like someone I'm sure said before, regarding those other issues.

Now as I've said, this is a matter regarding what's the proper role of government for me. I've stated plainly what my views on marriage are but being that it isn't my life I don't have any right to prevent anyone else from doing what they want. It's this addiction to liberty and freedom thing I have, it's a pain sometimes, I know, but hey -- We all have are vices, right?

Then you're going to have to spell out for me how the government being involved in marriage is taking away your liberty and freedom, cause I'm not seeing it. Well, it's certainly infringing on the liberty and freedom of gay people, but that's being addressed.
 
State government? Yes.

Federal government? No.
 
You presume that everybody, bar none, would be responsible and draw up a contract.

Well, marriage is really nothing more than a contract for one, and second, perhaps if things needed to be addressed explicitly we wouldn't have a backlog in divorce court

Like I had stated -- current "rights of marriage" can simply be extended universally. That's the easiest way, if that route don't tickle your fancy -- Let the negotiations begin!!! Break out the dowry, the goats, chickens, and cows and settle this marriage contract over strong drink!
 
State government? Yes.

Federal government? No.

Federal government is what allows your marriage license in California to be the same one you get to keep in Maine.

Sheesh, it's already enough of a pain in the ass to have to get a new driver's license if I move to another state. Why make life even more difficult?
 
Federal government is what allows your marriage license in California to be the same one you get to keep in Maine.

Sheesh, it's already enough of a pain in the ass to have to get a new driver's license if I move to another state. Why make life even more difficult?

Is it the federal government or the state government of Maine recognizing marriage certificates issued in California?
 
Is it the federal government or the state government of Maine recognizing marriage certificates issued in California?

Federal law recognizes it, which results in Maine recognizing it. Why did you make me write that out?
 
Then you're going to have to spell out for me how the government being involved in marriage is taking away your liberty and freedom, cause I'm not seeing it. Well, it's certainly infringing on the liberty and freedom of gay people, but that's being addressed.

Well, I can only say if you'd like read the comments I left on post #53 here on this page to get where I'm coming from..if you haven't already...

I mean I'm giving this to you phonetically for Pete's sake.

Unless you're playing that gotcha game with the words again, how am I being affected -- is that what you're asking? Oh, well, if that's the case, I guess it's the bodhisattva in me.. I don't get mine til everyone else gets theirs...

(don't think I've forgotten about that agenda of yours, come, come, I've let you have a spin, your turn, gonna fess up?)
 
Which federal law specifically?

Thanks for catching that. I had to research that only to find that while the Supremacy Clause allows the Supreme Court to rule on state laws regarding marriage, there are no specific federal laws (at least none that ten minutes of research could uncover). Thus, it would appear, the present day fuss over the matter.
 
Last edited:
There are 'religions' that subjugate mostly women and young boys that roll up lots of stuff with what they call marriage. It's still done in Northern Arizona, e.g. 'married' at 14 or younger. If you let private organizations define marriage, women and boys will have no escape. When they escape, which is difficult, their 'husbands' will be able to 'rescue' them if there are no rules (laws) about what marriage is. Just keep the law simple. It can be just two adults in a legal arrangement. Why leave people unprotected? Why make it complicated?
 
(don't think I've forgotten about that agenda of yours, come, come, I've let you have a spin, your turn, gonna fess up?)

I think this is something like the third time you've alluded to a hidden agenda of mine. I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
The government has to be involved in the contract enforcement business, there is no logical alternative. The gov't should not be involved in the social engineering business, our federal income tax code is now 90% not about taxing income from all sources, the clear intent of the 16th amendmant, but about how (and upon who) that income was later spent using thousands of exemptions, deductions, credits, creative accounting methods, subsidies and exclusions. Being married is contract about joint property, survivorship and implied power of attorney in "contract sanctioned" personal relationships. Limitations on the gender and number of partners are being argued, but general agreement exists on the exclusivity of the marriage contract (no bigamy). To deny the spouse (or spouses) of any LTR to be denied SS/joint property survivorship benefits or inclusion on a "familiy" medical plan is wrong. Using gov't fiat to define the "morality" or "the suitability" of any adult partner (or partners) is outlawed for business contracts yet the very basis for marriage contracts.
 
Marriage throughout European and American history has for the most part been a chruch affair. Churches performed and kept records of who was married. It wasn’t until the middle 1800’s that some states started to keep records on who was married and if memory serves me right, Kentucky around 1916 became the last state to keep records on marriage.

If it weren’t for the passage of the income tax amendment and the federal government starting to use the tax code to enforce, no, not enforce but to use the tax code to achieve certain personal behavior among it citizens, this discussion would be for the most part moot. One can draw up a will and leave anything to anyone regardless of being married or not. It is the tax advantages be it income, inheritance and other benefits since derived since the passage of the 16th amendment that has made who can or can’t be married into an divisive issue.

Personally, I see no problem with letting the church’s and religion if that is what you want to call it to maintain their place in history and marriage. All other marriages outside the church, you can call them civil unions for tax and benefit resolution and let’s move on.
 
Back
Top Bottom