• 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!

Are marriage licenses good or bad?

Are marriage licenses good or bad

  • Yes -- government needs to issue them

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • No -- government should not be issuing them

    Votes: 13 68.4%
  • Total voters
    19
C

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should the government be issuing marriage licenses to anyone?

What purpose is served by government regulating the institution of marriage?
 
I've been thinking about this more since the previous poll and can't think of any good or legitimate reason for government to regulate/license marriage. We have a secular government(non-endorsement of a church state) not to be confused with the public removal movement's twisted stance, this position disallows government from the licensure of marriage in that it isn't within the government's authority to ban the free exercise of religion, licensure puts a prior restraint on said exercise. The only reason I can think of to license marriage is two-fold, one, to allow for justice of the peace marriages which essentially are nothing more than glorified civil-unions, and two, to have yet one more thing that can be taxed.
 
It should only be a religious thing. "OK, it's morally and socially acceptable now for you to live together and have sex."

Then, if you have a child, you should register with the government for tax breaks. The government should have nothing to do with your social morality.
 
sazerac said:
It should only be a religious thing. "OK, it's morally and socially acceptable now for you to live together and have sex."

Then, if you have a child, you should register with the government for tax breaks. The government should have nothing to do with your social morality.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.
 
The state should only recognize civil unions (contracts).
 
celticlord said:
Should the government be issuing marriage licenses to anyone?

What purpose is served by government regulating the institution of marriage?
Click to expand...

A marriage is a contract. It should be treated the same as any other contract.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
A marriage is a contract. It should be treated the same as any other contract.
Click to expand...
It is a contract in a way, but I disagree when we take it down to the basics of calling it a contract because that becomes fuel for a government expansion enthusiast to say, "see, it's a contract, that gives us ninth and tenth amendment control of it".
 
LaMidRighter said:
It is a contract in a way, but I disagree when we take it down to the basics of calling it a contract because that becomes fuel for a government expansion enthusiast to say, "see, it's a contract, that gives us ninth and tenth amendment control of it".
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that. Seems to me that contract law would work to the favor of the contracting parties and against government regulation.
 
sazerac said:
It should only be a religious thing. "OK, it's morally and socially acceptable now for you to live together and have sex."

Then, if you have a child, you should register with the government for tax breaks. The government should have nothing to do with your social morality.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If it were simply about giving a tax break to parents, we could do that without a problem. I believe we're already doing so.

The purpose of marriage is to provide legal and financial incentive for a couple to stay together. This is a necessary condition to provide a stable home environment for children and contributes considerably to providing proper supervision as well.

If anything, the government should do more to uphold the social institution, not less. Unfortunately, any attempt to raise this issue is immediately hijacked by religious conservatives as a platform for homophobia-- and their liberal counterparts, who are of course opposed to morality.
 
peepnklown said:
The state should only recognize civil unions (contracts).
Click to expand...

Which is really all a marriage license is, it's a contract between two people, nothing more, nothing less.
 
The purpose of marriage is to provide legal and financial incentive for a couple to stay together. This is a necessary condition to provide a stable home environment for children and contributes considerably to providing proper supervision as well.
Click to expand...

Why should providing a stable home environment or proper supervision be the job of the government?
 
Panache said:
Why should providing a stable home environment or proper supervision be the job of the government?
Click to expand...

Because it promotes the health and vitality of the nation to do so. Any other institution which is capable of encouraging and supporting marriage should do so as well.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Because it promotes the health and vitality of the nation to do so. Any other institution which is capable of encouraging and supporting marriage should do so as well.
Click to expand...

Ya know, he's got a point there.

Plenty of studies that children do better raised in two-parent homes where Mommy and Daddy stay together. I've had two major examples to look to: my own parents married for life and were together for over 55 years. I on the other hand, am a divorced single father with a child at home, and it's a difficult path to take.

Divorce rates were so much lower in my parent's generation (Depression/WW2), and I've often wondered why. Legally harder to divorce, and social stigma are two obvious ones, but I've often wondered if there's been a fundamental change in people over the past three generations (boomers, Xers, Y's). Unreasonably high expectations perhaps, coupled with lower tolerance for those expectations not being met. (shrug).
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Because it promotes the health and vitality of the nation to do so. Any other institution which is capable of encouraging and supporting marriage should do so as well.
Click to expand...
Can the same purpose be achieved by removing marriage to exclusively the religious sphere and establishing civil unions as the government sanction to promote those ends?
 
celticlord said:
Can the same purpose be achieved by removing marriage to exclusively the religious sphere and establishing civil unions as the government sanction to promote those ends?
Click to expand...

Possibly. It would depend on civil unions having the same legal, financial, and social pressure to persevere that marriages do.

Since the legal and social pressures are nearly non-existent and the financial pressures entirely one-sided... well, it wouldn't take a lot for civil unions to be just as effective as modern marriages.

I really don't care what we call it. I just wish it were more difficult to dissolve.
 
Because it promotes the health and vitality of the nation to do so. Any other institution which is capable of encouraging and supporting marriage should do so as well.
Click to expand...

I imagine that it would promote the health and vitality of the nation if everyone mastered Tai Chi and drank V8. Does that mean it is the governments job to provide legal and financial incentives to do so?
 
Since the legal and social pressures are nearly non-existent and the financial pressures entirely one-sided... well, it wouldn't take a lot for civil unions to be just as effective as modern marriages.

I really don't care what we call it. I just wish it were more difficult to dissolve.
Click to expand...

I agree that they should be harder to dissolve. I think that if "till death do us part" is part of the contract, then the the contract should be binding for as long as both parties are still alive, or until they mutually agree to a renegotiated contract.
 
Panache said:
I agree that they should be harder to dissolve. I think that if "till death do us part" is part of the contract, then the the contract should be binding for as long as both parties are still alive, or until they mutually agree to a renegotiated contract.
Click to expand...


Hm. I think that would increase the rates of both murder and suicide. :mrgreen:
 
Panache said:
I imagine that it would promote the health and vitality of the nation if everyone mastered Tai Chi and drank V8. Does that mean it is the governments job to provide legal and financial incentives to do so?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Do you think universal mastery of Tai Chi and consumption of V8 would provide as much social benefit as having the majority of children grow up in homes with both of their parents? And do you think it's possible to provide meaningful incentives to do these things without spending an inordinate amount of money or unduly imposing in peoples' lives?
 
Goshin said:
Ya know, he's got a point there.

Plenty of studies that children do better raised in two-parent homes where Mommy and Daddy stay together. I've had two major examples to look to: my own parents married for life and were together for over 55 years. I on the other hand, am a divorced single father with a child at home, and it's a difficult path to take.

Divorce rates were so much lower in my parent's generation (Depression/WW2), and I've often wondered why. Legally harder to divorce, and social stigma are two obvious ones, but I've often wondered if there's been a fundamental change in people over the past three generations (boomers, Xers, Y's). Unreasonably high expectations perhaps, coupled with lower tolerance for those expectations not being met. (shrug).
Click to expand...

A contract isn't required for 'mommy and daddy' to stay together. So that's really not a reason for said contracts.
 
rivrrat said:
A contract isn't required for 'mommy and daddy' to stay together. So that's really not a reason for said contracts.
Click to expand...
While it may not be required, it most certainly is helpful--sufficiently so that it does become a reason for said contracts.
 
Panache said:
I agree that they should be harder to dissolve. I think that if "till death do us part" is part of the contract, then the the contract should be binding for as long as both parties are still alive, or until they mutually agree to a renegotiated contract.
Click to expand...
Most contracts give one party the option to get out for cause, i.e. the other party does not abide by the terms of the contract.

Should a woman have to stay in a relationship that is abusive? Should a man have to stay in a relationship where the woman sleeps with other men?

.
 
TOJ said:
Most contracts give one party the option to get out for cause, i.e. the other party does not abide by the terms of the contract.

Should a woman have to stay in a relationship that is abusive? Should a man have to stay in a relationship where the woman sleeps with other men?
Click to expand...
Applying the principles of contract law, the default response would be "depends on the terms of the contract."

Drilling further, I would argue that abuse would ultimately be a breach of the contract. In fact, applying contract law makes it easier to define abuse, and to derive meaningful and appropriate remedy (i.e., spankings might not be abusive if allowed under the contract, but face slapping would be prohibited).

As for whether sleeping with another is grounds to void the contract, that would depend entirely on whether monogamy was in the contract, or if there were other limitations placed on permissible sexual activities. In a contract for an "open" relationship, for example, the only restriction might be use of condoms and contraception.
 
rivrrat said:
A contract isn't required for 'mommy and daddy' to stay together. So that's really not a reason for said contracts.
Click to expand...

I don't know...maybe. I've been married, and there's good times and not-so-good times...and sometimes a little extra reason to hang in there during the not-so-good times could help.

A good many people still regard marriage as a religious matter, and those who take their religion seriously abide by whatever the teachings on marriage are. Does not apply to the non-observent, but that's one thing that can help keep a marriage together.

If there is property, there has to be some method for dividing it in the event the couple part ways. Without a contract, whoever has things in their name walks away with them, in the absence of other laws. Deciding who gets primary custody of the children, whether/how much the other parent gets visitation or a say in the children's upbringing, these are all problems if there is no contract or law about couple-dom.

I think its a little more complicated than just "love will keep us together". :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I don't know...maybe. I've been married, and there's good times and not-so-good times...and sometimes a little extra reason to hang in there during the not-so-good times could help.
Click to expand...
Sometimes?

Love doesn't stand a chance against burnt toast and dirty dishes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom