• 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!

What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

  • Okay as it is/make only minor changes

    Votes: 6 23.1%

  • Take away all government financial incentives

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Make some specific changes only

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Take government out of marriage completely

    Votes: 12 46.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 26.9%
  • Total voters
    26
PzKfW IVe said:
Marriage is a legal institution.
As such, the state must create said institution, and then define the legalities of same.
This cannot happen without the state, and so the state, by the very nature of the legal institution, must be intimate with said institution.
Click to expand...

It didn't used to be. The Marriage License didn't come about till after the Civil War; and that was to prevent inter-racial marriage.
 
Ikari said:
It didn't used to be. The Marriage License didn't come about till after the Civil War; and that was to prevent inter-racial marriage.
Click to expand...
That may be the case -- but the fact of the matter is that the benefits and priviliges brought forth by the legal institution of marraige are the impetus behind the entire issue.

If you're not interested in these things, you're free to refer to whomever you wish as your spouse.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
That may be the case -- but the fact of the matter is that the benefits and priviliges brought forth by the legal institution of marraige are the impetus behind the entire issue.

If you're not interested in these things, you're free to refer to whomever you wish as your spouse.
Click to expand...

Those don't need to come with marriage and certain things like tax breaks, deductions from kids, breaks on mortgage rates, etc. should be done away with anyway. The contractual privilege found in the marriage license can be broken up in to several separate contracts and made available for whomever wishes to engage in them.
 
Ikari said:
It didn't used to be. The Marriage License didn't come about till after the Civil War; and that was to prevent inter-racial marriage.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

History

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.[1] Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century with many available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[2] Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.[1] At least 32 nations have established significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.[3]
Click to expand...

So, you're partly correct.
 
Ikari said:
Those don't need to come with marriage...
Click to expand...
They are the impetus behind the issue.
If these things did not come with marriage, the huge majority of those pushing the SSM issue would not care.
Listen to the arguments - they are almost always about denying 'rights' to homosexuals.

The contractual privilege found in the marriage license can be broken up in to several separate contracts...
Click to expand...
Some of them, yes. Some of them, no.
No personal contract can protect you from the state forcing your spouse from testifying against you.
No personal contract can force a hospital to allow your spouse to see you.
Etc.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
From Wikipedia:



So, you're partly correct.
Click to expand...

The marriage license prior to the Civil War was not manditory. Common Law marriage was by and far well more approved and accepted. Colorado still has common law marriage which doesn't require a Marriage License, but I don't know how many States still recognize it. With the end of the Civil War can the requirement of inter-racial couples to obtain a Marriage License, common law marriage was not recognized for them. And the State did this in order to prevent inter-racial marriage.
 
Ikari said:
The marriage license prior to the Civil War was not manditory. Common Law marriage was by and far well more approved and accepted. Colorado still has common law marriage which doesn't require a Marriage License, but I don't know how many States still recognize it. With the end of the Civil War can the requirement of inter-racial couples to obtain a Marriage License, common law marriage was not recognized for them. And the State did this in order to prevent inter-racial marriage.
Click to expand...

Which state?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom