Marriage (1 Viewer)

[YoungConserv]

I have been listening to oral arguments and aynalize of them and have found a desturbing lack of questions on the true question why is government involved in marriage at all? Am I just bring too libertarian or what?

 

[Henrin]

I have been listening to oral arguments and aynalize of them and have found a desturbing lack of questions on the true question why is government involved in marriage at all? Am I just bring too libertarian or what?

I always notice that when talking about marriage. Nothing new there.

 

[Paschendale]

Property, inheritance, medical decisions, taxation, child custody, child support, privilege against testifying, medical information, privacy...

All of those are areas of law where marital relationship matters. The government must track and record marriage to keep all of those other issues straight.

Why is the government involved in telling consenting adults that they cannot marry? It shouldn't be.

 

[Samhain]

I've asked the question numerous times and have never gotten an answer. Sotomayer asked a question that almost got there, when she asked if marriage was a civil right, then the state cannot restrict in any way(i.e. number of parties, sexes, ages, close relations ).

Property, inheritance, medical decisions, taxation, child custody, child support, privilege against testifying, medical information, privacy...

All of those are areas of law where marital relationship matters. The government must track and record marriage to keep all of those other issues straight.

Why is the government involved in telling consenting adults that they cannot marry? It shouldn't be.

In all of those situations, why is it limited to two people and the state? It doesn't need to be, but since the state has tied all of those things to marriage, a religious construct, they've F'd themselves.

 

[YoungConserv]

Property, inheritance, medical decisions, taxation, child custody, child support, privilege against testifying, medical information, privacy...

All of those are areas of law where marital relationship matters. The government must track and record marriage to keep all of those other issues straight.

Why is the government involved in telling consenting adults that they cannot marry? It shouldn't be.

Right but all or those don't need to be linked to marriage so isn't that a call to reform those sepratly. I'm asking where the federal government gets to say anything on marriage. For example doms is unconstitutional.

 

[jasonxe]

Private contract between two individuals is self sufficing.

 

[Samhain]

Private contract between two individuals is self sufficing.

Except that isn't what marriage is. Its a three way contract including the state in which you reside.

 

[Paschendale]

Right but all or those don't need to be linked to marriage so isn't that a call to reform those sepratly. I'm asking where the federal government gets to say anything on marriage. For example doms is unconstitutional.

Well, the division between state vs federal government aside, what exactly is it that you think the government is saying about marriage that it shouldn't be? Other than disqualifying SSM, of course.

 

[YoungConserv]

Well, the division between state vs federal government aside, what exactly is it that you think the government is saying about marriage that it shouldn't be? Other than disqualifying SSM, of course.

The fed saying anything on government period! Wether it be social security, taxes and ect..

 

[jasonxe]

Except that isn't what marriage is. Its a three way contract including the state in which you reside.

Yea, i know. I'm talking how I think it should be, not what it is already.

 

[Henrin]

Private contract between two individuals is self sufficing.

Exactly. In fact, it gives you more authority over the terms of the contract going this route. It would seem to me everyone would support this over some other party controlling the contract. :shrug:

 

[Perotista]

I have been listening to oral arguments and aynalize of them and have found a desturbing lack of questions on the true question why is government involved in marriage at all? Am I just bring too libertarian or what?

No. I agree with you. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. For thousands of years in the western world, marriage was strictly a church affair. Only with within the last 100 years has the government became involved. Where being married or not could determine benefits.

 

[specklebang]

Yes, it is a contract and since it has numerous legal implications, it is a decision that should be made rationally. But for all its values, its usually poorly chosen.

Marriage should be a formal contract between the parties carefully drawn up by an attorney instead of a drunken night of Vegas revelry.

Any 2 or more individuals that wish to commit, should ber allowed to do so through contract. The State should make sure the contract is legitimate and require all states to honor the contract.

Private contract between two individuals is self sufficing.

Except that isn't what marriage is. Its a three way contract including the state in which you reside.

 

[Deuce]

Right but all or those don't need to be linked to marriage so isn't that a call to reform those sepratly. I'm asking where the federal government gets to say anything on marriage. For example doms is unconstitutional.

It is beneficial to have all those things simplified and automatic. If forced to write individual contracts for every aspect of marriage, families would undergo severe stress at times, especially during divorce, because all of those contracts would end up going through court battles instead of most of them just being automatic.

 

[YoungConserv]

It is beneficial to have all those things simplified and automatic. If forced to write individual contracts for every aspect of marriage, families would undergo severe stress at times, especially during divorce, because all of those contracts would end up going through court battles instead of most of them just being automatic.

Then make everyone file for civil unions.

 

[Paschendale]

The fed saying anything on government period! Wether it be social security, taxes and ect..

And I'm asking for specifics. What about social security or taxes should not be taking place? Which elements do you think would operate better as private contracts and why? Why do you think children would be better cared for if fathers did not automatically obtain parental rights by virtue of being married to the mother at the time of birth? Why do you think that spouses should be able to be compelled to testify against one another? Why do you think that law protecting equitable distribution of shared property upon divorce is a bad thing?

 

[Muddy Creek]

I've asked the question numerous times and have never gotten an answer. Sotomayer asked a question that almost got there, when she asked if marriage was a civil right, then the state cannot restrict in any way(i.e. number of parties, sexes, ages, close relations ).



In all of those situations, why is it limited to two people and the state? It doesn't need to be, but since the state has tied all of those things to marriage, a religious construct, they've F'd themselves.

And they know it. This has been a tool by both the born again evangelcial corporations and the republican party to get voters to vote for them. There's nothing illegal about gay marriage. Abortion will not be overturned. The republicans just used religion, one they help construct, to further their global desires.

 

[Muddy Creek]

Then make everyone file for civil unions.

Marriage is a state institution. Why change it?

 

[Henrin]

Marriage is a state institution. Why change it?

Because it has no reason to be a state institution.

 

[clownboy]

I have been listening to oral arguments and aynalize of them and have found a desturbing lack of questions on the true question why is government involved in marriage at all? Am I just bring too libertarian or what?

I was reading the reporting up on googlenews this AM and one report mentioned the Justices questioning why the feds are defining marriage when it's a state thing. So they are questioning that at least, even if it's only an attempt at an excuse to avoid the decision.

Here's an example:

Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday questioned whether the federal government has the right to define marriage, a role traditionally reserved for states, in the second day of Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage.

 

[Homer.]

No. I agree with you. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. For thousands of years in the western world, marriage was strictly a church affair. Only with within the last 100 years has the government became involved. Where being married or not could determine benefits.

Well this is not true.
A priest was not required to be present at a marriage in Europe until 1545. - Pernoud, Régine (2000). Those terrible Middle Ages: debunking the myths. San Francisco: Ignatius Press

 

[Visbek]

Marriage has ALWAYS had political and economic dimensions.

It has critical bearing on your rights, including things like medical treatment, responsibility for child care, survivorship and estates, benefits and taxes, co-ownership of property.

The populace has also relied on the state to prevent the types of marriages it does not find acceptable, such as the age of the marriage partner(s), or polygamy/polyandry.

It would be impossible, in modern society, for the state not to have any laws regulating marriage.

 

[Redress]

I have been listening to oral arguments and aynalize of them and have found a desturbing lack of questions on the true question why is government involved in marriage at all? Am I just bring too libertarian or what?

The reason it is not being brought up is that it is a separate issue from what the court is deciding now. For now, both federal and state governments give benefits and assign obligations based on marriage. Until the constitutionality of that is questioned by suit, it is lawful for them to do so, and so not an issue. The issue in Tuesday's argument is whether a state can or cannot make a law disallowing SSM. At issue today was whether the federal government has the right to not recognize marriages made by the various states.

 

[Redress]

I was reading the reporting up on googlenews this AM and one report mentioned the Justices questioning why the feds are defining marriage when it's a state thing. So they are questioning that at least, even if it's only an attempt at an excuse to avoid the decision.

Here's an example:

Not what he was talking about I don't think. The OP was, if I understood correctly, why the government has any role in marriage. What Kennedy was questioning was why the federal government was taking away the right of states to define who it marries.

 

[Ikari]

I have been listening to oral arguments and aynalize of them and have found a desturbing lack of questions on the true question why is government involved in marriage at all? Am I just bring too libertarian or what?

Because it's well known why they are involved. The Marriage License came about after the Civil War and was specifically and purposefully constructed to prevent inter-racial marriages which would destroy the fabric of society and belittle the institution of marriage and blah blah blah. Recorded history. They are involved in order to discriminate.