• 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 state recognize marriage at all?

Should the state recognize marriage at all?

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Cardinal said:
Then I don't understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'm going to paraphrase what Goshin said and wrap what I said into it in the hopes of clearing things up. Any errors are mine.

Goshin feels that, ideally, it would be nice to have government out of the business of recognizing marriages, but that when you have things or children or a death enter into the arrangement it would be difficult to resolve without the involvement of the state -- unless mechanisms for handling these things are spelled out in advance.

Spelling these things out in advance would require participants in a contractual relationship to clearly define their expectations and to plan for the future. This way, when there is a fundamental disagreement to be settled or a dissolution involving property and/or children, the aforementioned mechanisms are in place and can be used to settle the issue.

I do not believe that the government defines the average person's expectations for marriage -- I believe the government tries to factor our these complications with law. Legally recognized marriage comes with a cookie-cutter set of privileges and responsibilities already spelled out. We could just as easily all be adults about it, figure out how we want the moving parts of our own marriages / relationships to go together, and draw up papers that set those preferences out in advance without the state's help.
 
The problem with having marriage as an entirely private contract is that it's only binding on the couple themselves. You loose the aspect of the spouse being legal next of kin, potentially impacting all sorts of things such as medical decisions, insurance, banking, immigration, legal rights, parental rights and responsibilities. It might not be an issue for most couples most of the time but it will come up in some cases. After all, it's something some gay couples have fallen foul of and a factor in their fight for full legal recognition.
 
HonestJoe said:
The problem with having marriage as an entirely private contract is that it's only binding on the couple themselves. You loose the aspect of the spouse being legal next of kin, potentially impacting all sorts of things such as medical decisions, insurance, banking, immigration, legal rights, parental rights and responsibilities. It might not be an issue for most couples most of the time but it will come up in some cases. After all, it's something some gay couples have fallen foul of and a factor in their fight for full legal recognition.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. Medical decisions, insurance policies, banking, parental rights and responsibilities can all be managed without a state-recognized marriage. I'm not sure how state-recognized marriage impacts someone's ability to move here and eventually become a citizen.

The issue with same-sex couples wasn't so much the rights, responsibilities and protections -- civil unions could've covered that. It was about being truly equal and having that equality recognized by having their relationship sanctioned identically to opposite-sex couples. A nation in which the state does not license marriage would have seen no such inequality.
 
I think that its better if we didn't recognize marriage. It serves no purpose. All benefits are unnecessary, breaking the contract is difficult normally involving legal battles. I think the only reason it exists still is because it is such a cash cow for divorce lawyers.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I think that its better if we didn't recognize marriage. It serves no purpose. All benefits are unnecessary, breaking the contract is difficult normally involving legal battles. I think the only reason it exists still is because it is such a cash cow for divorce lawyers.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the hay many a politician has made on the subject.
 
The only reason and way the state should acknowledge the institution of marriage is to allow married couples with children to claim children and spouses who are not working due to being primary care givers as dependents for tax purposes. If no children are involved and both are working or can work, then they should get taxed at the same rate as single people. Employers should only be compelled, if at all, to provide healthcare and other benefits only when there is someone truly dependent, i.e., unable to work in the family.
 
DVSentinel said:
The only reason and way the state should acknowledge the institution of marriage is to allow married couples with children to claim children and spouses who are not working due to being primary care givers as dependents for tax purposes. If no children are involved and both are working or can work, then they should get taxed at the same rate as single people. Employers should only be compelled, if at all, to provide healthcare and other benefits only when there is someone truly dependent, i.e., unable to work in the family.
Click to expand...

Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp?
Click to expand...

There is should be no real tax benefit other than the number of dependents that can be claimed. If not married, then only one of the two biological parents should be able to claim dependent children and no one claims "spouse" as a dependent.
 
Lakryte said:
When property or children are involved, or if there is a divorce or requirements of division, the state only needs to get involved to enforce the private marriage contracts, like any other contract. No need for an official government issued license.
Click to expand...
:dito:
 
This nonsense is all just a religious power grab. There has never been a monopoly of marriage or its customs by any culture, religion, or whatever. Theism, spirituality, superstition... none of these can lay claim to the ideas of marriage. Even humans can't claim a monopoly on it. Plenty of other species pair off exactly the same way we do. And they have rules about it, too. This whole "get government out of marriage" BS is just the religious in this country whining about no longer getting special treatment. Oh the suffering of mere equality.
 
DVSentinel said:
There is should be no real tax benefit other than the number of dependents that can be claimed. If not married, then only one of the two biological parents should be able to claim dependent children and no one claims "spouse" as a dependent.
Click to expand...

Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp [sic]?
Click to expand...

It is very clearly in the best interests of the children,and of society as a whole, that the children be part of a family that is built on the marriage between their mother and their father; with both parents being subject to being held legally responsible for each other and for their children. Marriage fulfills this purpose. It is the duty of government to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. This certainly includes recognizing the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, and giving suitable recognition and support to the essential role that marriage plays in a stable society. Certainly, it is fully in accordance with these principles that tax benefits be structured to give preference to a family based on a marriage between a man and a woman over a situation in which one woman has a dozen different kids by a dozen different deadbeat baby daddies.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It is very clearly in the best interests of the children,and of society as a whole, that the children be part of a family that is built on the marriage between their mother and their father; with both parents being subject to being held legally responsible for each other and for their children. Marriage fulfills this purpose. It is the duty of government to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. This certainly includes recognizing the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, and giving suitable recognition and support to the essential role that marriage plays in a stable society. Certainly, it is fully in accordance with these principles that tax benefits be structured to give preference to a family based on a marriage between a man and a woman over a situation in which one woman has a dozen different kids by a dozen different deadbeat baby daddies.
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between promoting stable families and promoting married families, as evidenced by the divorce rate. Personally, I think it would be far easier to establish the kind of relationship upon which a stable family can be founded if one were to do so without a cookie-cutter approach.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
There is a significant difference between promoting stable families and promoting married families, as evidenced by the divorce rate. Personally, I think it would be far easier to establish the kind of relationship upon which a stable family can be founded if one were to do so without a cookie-cutter approach.
Click to expand...

I say that the high divorce rate is one of the several symptoms of exactly the sort of ills that we have brought upon ourselves by devaluing marriage and family to the degree that we have. Even as badly as we have so far damaged the institution of marriage, I think it clearly remains the case that a family founded on a married couple, in general, is going to be more stable than one that is not; and this would be much more true if we still properly upheld, respected, and protected marriage in the manner that we currently are failing as a society to do.
 
iacardsfan said:
Not at all. No religion as of now is going to marry a gay couple, this doesn't solve anything.
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect. There are several religious groups, including several Christian faiths, who are perfectly willing to marry same sex couples.

Lakryte said:
When property or children are involved, or if there is a divorce or requirements of division, the state only needs to get involved to enforce the private marriage contracts, like any other contract. No need for an official government issued license.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "private marriage contract" in most marriages. You presume that marriage simply awards all the benefits that the State recognizes. Try dealing with property claims, parental rights, medical visitation and determinations when in-laws challenge a spouse they dislike.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Not in the least. Medical decisions, insurance policies, banking, parental rights and responsibilities can all be managed without a state-recognized marriage. I'm not sure how state-recognized marriage impacts someone's ability to move here and eventually become a citizen.

The issue with same-sex couples wasn't so much the rights, responsibilities and protections -- civil unions could've covered that. It was about being truly equal and having that equality recognized by having their relationship sanctioned identically to opposite-sex couples. A nation in which the state does not license marriage would have seen no such inequality.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect in both points. The first issue of rights and benefits are State protected by a variety of inheritance, marital property, and marital rights laws. Absent them, a spouse has no real rights to any beyond acceptance of custom or belief. This can be challenged by any interested party (child, parent, close relative, creditors, etc.)

In the second issue: Civil unions, being mere "contracts" can, and often are, challenged in civil courts by the relatives of the deceased or ill spouse. Marriage rights are clearly recognized and are not absent extreme circumstances.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationshp?
Click to expand...

WTF is "contractually defined relationship"?

As I have proposed, there are no tax breaks, benefits, etc, except those relating to children. These can be claimed whether married or not. In the case where the parents are not married or no longer married, then they switch off which years they claim the children as dependents. If there is no child support, then only the parent providing support can claim the children. The primary exception would be a spouse who does not have employment but is the primary care provider for the children. There can also be dependent family members. The legal recognition of marriage simply provides the legal structure to define family members. In the case of married, but no children/dependent family members, or even if those are present but both spouses work, they get the same benefits and are taxed the same as a single person.

Without the need to provide primary care for children, and in rare cases, other dependent family members, there is no reason to extend benefits, tax breaks, etc to a spouse who can work and no reason not to. The current structure was built at the time when women rarely entered the work force and were dependent upon their husbands. Since we can be equal in the work force now, and often are, then there is no longer a basis for married people to have any different benefits, tax breaks, etc except when children/dependent family care interferes with one spouses ability to be employed.
 
Yes, governments should not only recognize marriages they should only recognize marriages performed by state sanctioned officials. In the Netherlands for example people go and marry at the city registrars office first and then they can marry in the church afterwards. The church marriage is purely a private ceremony with no legal consequences, the real marriage is when the registrar signs the signed and witnessed marriage license.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Not in the least. Medical decisions, insurance policies, banking, parental rights and responsibilities can all be managed without a state-recognized marriage. I'm not sure how state-recognized marriage impacts someone's ability to move here and eventually become a citizen.
Click to expand...
They could be managed without formal legal recognition of the relationships but you loose the consistency. Currently, a legal spouse is always recognised as next of kin, relevant to medical or end-of-life decisions. Without that, it is luck of the draw as to whether a hospital will recognise the relationship (and as I said, homosexual couples and even unmarried heterosexual couples can face this issue).

The immigration aspect is if a foreigner marries a citizen. Currently that tends to grant a right (or at least strong favour) to their immigrating. Without state recognition of marriage, you loose that.

TacticalEvilDan said:
The issue with same-sex couples wasn't so much the rights, responsibilities and protections -- civil unions could've covered that.
Click to expand...
Yes, it did. That supports the point of having state recognition of relationships in general. This isn't an argument between marriage and civil partnership, it's between the state recognising or not recognising any such relationships.

Not I'm not making a definitive argument here, only pointing out some of the arguments from the opposite direction.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I say that the high divorce rate is one of the several symptoms of exactly the sort of ills that we have brought upon ourselves by devaluing marriage and family to the degree that we have. Even as badly as we have so far damaged the institution of marriage, I think it clearly remains the case that a family founded on a married couple, in general, is going to be more stable than one that is not; and this would be much more true if we still properly upheld, respected, and protected marriage in the manner that we currently are failing as a society to do.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing about the "devaluing" of marriage, but I can never seem to get a straight answer on what exactly that means. Furthermore, while the divorce statistic is a hard number, I can never seem to get other hard numbers which illustrate how the problem is the "devaluing" of marriage.

What this means, ultimately, is that the institution of marriage continues to be promoted both by the bureaucracy and by hysterical politicians despite its high failure rate and a complete lack of hard evidence as to why it fails so often and what might make a better alternative.

Never fear, politicians will continue to sing the praises of marriage in front of the cameras because it will continue to be a cheap way to score votes for the foreseeable future.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are incorrect in both points. The first issue of rights and benefits are State protected by a variety of inheritance, marital property, and marital rights laws. Absent them, a spouse has no real rights to any beyond acceptance of custom or belief. This can be challenged by any interested party (child, parent, close relative, creditors, etc.)
Click to expand...

Everything I listed out as being manageable without a state-recognized marriage can in fact be managed without such a union. Furthermore, civil unions in a number of states (most prominently California) has the same benefits as marriage absent Federal recognition (which would've been absent no matter what you called them, unions or marriage) and therefore interstate recognition:

Although the program enjoys broad support in California,[2] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.
Click to expand...

Domestic partnership in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Captain Adverse said:
In the second issue: Civil unions, being mere "contracts" can, and often are, challenged in civil courts by the relatives of the deceased or ill spouse. Marriage rights are clearly recognized and are not absent extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...

Marriages can be challenged just as much as are civil unions -- after all, anyone can sue anyone for anything. The real question is, how often and under what circumstances are the challenge of a civil union successful?
 
DVSentinel said:
WTF is "contractually defined relationship"?
Click to expand...

I thought that the term was self-explanatory, but okay. I'm talking about a relationship legally defined by a contract written and signed by the participants, backed up with a variety of forms like medical proxies and whatnot. Such a relationship would allow the participants to define the entry into, boundries of, and exit from the relationship however they choose. There could be 2 participants or 2 dozen.

DVSentinel said:
As I have proposed, there are no tax breaks, benefits, etc, except those relating to children.
Click to expand...

And the spousal deduction. You said, "There is should be no real tax benefit other than the number of dependents that can be claimed. If not married, then only one of the two biological parents should be able to claim dependent children and no one claims "spouse" as a dependent."

Why should married couples with kids receive a tax benefit not offered to unmarried couples with kids, or couples with kids who have a contractually defined relationship?
 
HonestJoe said:
They could be managed without formal legal recognition of the relationships but you loose the consistency. Currently, a legal spouse is always recognised as next of kin, relevant to medical or end-of-life decisions. Without that, it is luck of the draw as to whether a hospital will recognise the relationship (and as I said, homosexual couples and even unmarried heterosexual couples can face this issue).
Click to expand...

You can work around that if you plan in advance and fill out the right forms.

HonestJoe said:
The immigration aspect is if a foreigner marries a citizen. Currently that tends to grant a right (or at least strong favour) to their immigrating. Without state recognition of marriage, you loose that.
Click to expand...

I'd be okay with that.
 
Are we going to change our laws before marriage is a thing of the past?
A surviving spouse would not be entitled to benefits of any kind, which in a lot of cases would pose a great hardship especially when children are involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom