A Modest Proposal: Get the Government out of the Marriage Business

[Shemtov]

Before I get to the main subject of this thread, I would like too address any argument that this should have gone in the Gay Rights Thread. I would like too say that my opinion expressed here is not connected in any way to my views on Homosexuality or any specific issue of Gay Rights, other then a tangential connection to Gay Marriage. Given this, i felt that this deserved its own thread.

And now for the main topic.

In My humble opinion, the US Government, whether on a state or Federal Level has no right being in the Marriage Business. Instead everything should be classed under the term Civil Unions or Domestic partnership.
I have 3 main arguments why this should be so:
1. The Word "Marriage" has Religious connotation. Up until a point in the past 500, 600 years Marriage was carried out by the Church/Place of worship, not the State. This connotation has not been lost.
2. It is my belief (even though I find Adultery and Incest to be immoral) that under Lawrence v. Texas, Adultery laws should be as unconstitutional as Sodomy Laws, as that decision provided for sexual privacy. Now, if Adultery laws were to be declared Unconstitutional, as I wish them to be, then Marriage should not be Government's business. This is because The Word "Marriage" has the connotation of Condemning adultery. Thus, I feel that a belief that Government should get out of Marriage is a part and parcel of a belief that Adultery laws should be unconstitutional.
3. Perhaps 2 people who have no Romantic/sexual relationship want the rights of Marriage w/o Romantic/sexual Implications.

Now I understand the argument against my view that people want to say that they were "Married" and not "Civil Unionized". My response is that there is no reason to have Govt. involved as there could be a ceremony, whether Religious or Secular, representing the entering into marriage. Two consenting adults could just say they are Married if they want to, as there is freedom of speech in America.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You're right. Get the government out of marriage. Let people marry whoever the hell they want.

 

[Schlosser85]

My bottom line is, marriage is a legal contract issued by the government with no religious ceremony attached unless the parties so choose, and as such, any legal adults should be able to enter into a legal contract with anyone they wish.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Or... you could make gay marriage legal, and avoid all the paperwork.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I also fail to see how a gay marriage affects a straight man's marriage. Is your passing discomfort at seeing 2 dudes in love more important than their right to be happy together?

 

[Schlosser85]

It's the downfall of civilization!

I've heard various people say that every civilization which has embraced homosexuality has collapsed, and cited Rome as an example.

Nevermind that same-sex marriage was banned by Emperor Constantine on pain of death well before the fall of Rome.

And of course, ya know, the fall of Rome was because they had gay sex and not because of psychopathic Emperors, a crumbling economy, forces spread too thin, outside invasion, etc.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Right. Their argument is almost as historically inaccurate as it is self-righteous.

 

[Paradoxium]

I'm in favor of off'ing legal marriage licenses. The fact some judges can throw out prenups shows it sucks.

 

[SuperFerret]

Marriage is a weird thing that developed both as a cultural thing and as a social contract. Given its history though, it would be more appropriate to remove love from marriage than government, as historically, it's mostly been about contracts and trade than love.

 

[RockSP]

Gay marriage should have been legal a long time ago.

Indeed.

"Gays should have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else" --Chris Rock

 

[chamber-music]

I think taking it out of goverment hands is a good idea. When these type of social things get politicized it gets even more messy than it should be.

Catholic countries like Spain, Argentina and Portugal even have same-sex marriages.

 

[TheBat812]

I really hope Obama tackles this some time this term, because who else is going to do it and how long is it going to take otherwise? Would also ensure his name in history books.

 

[Shemtov]

Or... you could make gay marriage legal, and avoid all the paperwork.

Or....this has nothing to do with Gay Marriage in and of itself.

I also fail to see how a gay marriage affects a straight man's marriage. Is your passing discomfort at seeing 2 dudes in love more important than their right to be happy together?

I repeat that my opinion expressed here is not connected in any way to my views on Homosexuality or any specific issue of Gay Rights.
I understand that given that most people who advocate pulling the Govt. out of marriage ARE saying that because of their negative views on Homosexuality and Gay rights. I Understand that I may very well be the first person you've encountered supporting this idea for reasons other then their negative views on Homosexuality and Gay rights, and that it is human nature to associate an idea with the first person you heard it from, but please, do not make assumptions. I have provided three reasons why I feel this way, and none of them have too do with homosexuality and Gay rights, except a mention of Lawrence v. Texas, which I only mentioned to point out implications of the decision with regard to other things then Homosexuality and Gay rights.

My bottom line is, marriage is a legal contract issued by the government with no religious ceremony attached unless the parties so choose, and as such, any legal adults should be able to enter into a legal contract with anyone they wish.

That IS were I'm coming from, except that I feel that given the implications of the word "marriage" that that word should not be used by Govt. I completely understand any objections based on the idea that the word "marriage " does not have those implications as much as I am saying it does, however, I happen to disagree.
I happen to feel that given the fact that The US Govt. should not interfere with it's citizen's sex lives, it should also refrain from given the implication of doing so.

 

[dnno1]

Before I get to the main subject of this thread, I would like too address any argument that this should have gone in the Gay Rights Thread. I would like too say that my opinion expressed here is not connected in any way to my views on Homosexuality or any specific issue of Gay Rights, other then a tangential connection to Gay Marriage. Given this, i felt that this deserved its own thread.

And now for the main topic.

In My humble opinion, the US Government, whether on a state or Federal Level has no right being in the Marriage Business. Instead everything should be classed under the term Civil Unions or Domestic partnership.
I have 3 main arguments why this should be so:
1. The Word "Marriage" has Religious connotation. Up until a point in the past 500, 600 years Marriage was carried out by the Church/Place of worship, not the State. This connotation has not been lost.
2. It is my belief (even though I find Adultery and Incest to be immoral) that under Lawrence v. Texas, Adultery laws should be as unconstitutional as Sodomy Laws, as that decision provided for sexual privacy. Now, if Adultery laws were to be declared Unconstitutional, as I wish them to be, then Marriage should not be Government's business. This is because The Word "Marriage" has the connotation of Condemning adultery. Thus, I feel that a belief that Government should get out of Marriage is a part and parcel of a belief that Adultery laws should be unconstitutional.
3. Perhaps 2 people who have no Romantic/sexual relationship want the rights of Marriage w/o Romantic/sexual Implications.

Now I understand the argument against my view that people want to say that they were "Married" and not "Civil Unionized". My response is that there is no reason to have Govt. involved as there could be a ceremony, whether Religious or Secular, representing the entering into marriage. Two consenting adults could just say they are Married if they want to, as there is freedom of speech in America.

I used to think that way, but now I understand that these are not altogether true. Yes, today, marriage has a religious "connotation", but it has always been a social institution that has been regulated by governments in Western civilizations since the time of ancient Greece. Yes, marriage can have a religious aspect where a religious institution is involved, but the over arching nature of marriage is social and can be regulated by governments. Let me ask this question and you will see my point. If we took government out of marriage, how could one prove that they were married? Anyone could wear a ring on their left hand or just live together with another person, but how do we know if that is legitimate? Anyone could have a wedding ceremony anywhere and pay money for it, but how would one know if it was actually by an authority who could actually marry someone? What if he/she was some quack that was out there just to take someone's money? What happens to community property once the couple breaks up? How do you or who would handle those situations? I think we need to understand that marriage is really a social institution governed by contract law and that the government regulates and the religious aspect is only secondary.

 

[dnno1]

It's the downfall of civilization!

I've heard various people say that every civilization which has embraced homosexuality has collapsed, and cited Rome as an example.

Nevermind that same-sex marriage was banned by Emperor Constantine on pain of death well before the fall of Rome.

And of course, ya know, the fall of Rome was because they had gay sex and not because of psychopathic Emperors, a crumbling economy, forces spread too thin, outside invasion, etc.

That's pretty trivial. Every civilization has eventually collapsed. That is inevitable. I don't think it was because of homosexuality.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

That's pretty trivial. Every civilization has eventually collapsed. That is inevitable. I don't think it was because of homosexuality.

I think Schlosser85 was using sarcasm, but I could be wrong.

 

[warhorse78]

Yes, either get government out of marriage, or make the system where it doesn't discriminate against singletons or non traditional couples. Whatever, it is a broken system, and needs to be fixed.

I am a woman, and I myself think it's not right that in a divorce, women seem to easily get alimony. Really, do you guys see this fair, or do you all think maybe this needs to be looked at more closely too.

What about other singles out there, do you think it's right that married couples pay less in taxes, in insurance, and loan rates?

 

[moviedoors]

Yes, either get government out of marriage, or make the system where it doesn't discriminate against singletons or non traditional couples. Whatever, it is a broken system, and needs to be fixed.

I am a woman, and I myself think it's not right that in a divorce, women seem to easily get alimony. Really, do you guys see this fair, or do you all think maybe this needs to be looked at more closely too.

What about other singles out there, do you think it's right that married couples pay less in taxes, in insurance, and loan rates?

I'll chime as someone whose "married." I wear a wedding band, call her my wife, and I got her on my health insurance, but we never had a ceremony or anything official. We're just going with common law married. No name swapping, we don't file taxes together, we have separate bank accounts, etc. We could take advantage of those things (a common law marriage in Texas is the easiest thing in the world), but we haven't yet.

No, I don't think it's right.

 

[dnno1]

...I am a woman, and I myself think it's not right that in a divorce, women seem to easily get alimony. Really, do you guys see this fair, or do you all think maybe this needs to be looked at more closely too...

It all depends on the financial status of the woman. If she has a job and makes enough money to take care of herself and her finances (that would also include any dependents) then she may not be entitled to alimony. That would also be the case if the woman married another person who could financially support her. The whole reason why there is alimony is to ensure that the spouse can survive (financially) on their own after the couple separates. The other alternative would be to have the taxpayers support the woman via welfare (and I don't think many people here would like that).

What about other singles out there, do you think it's right that married couples pay less in taxes, in insurance, and loan rates?

If you are married and have a family your expenses should technically be greater that a person who is single. This is why married couple get a tax break. Case in point. Lets pretend that there are two 40-year-old males who have been working in industry for 20 years. Both make more than $100,000, but one has a family of 4 while the other is single. There is no reason to believe that the single gentlemen would need to live on or have the expenses of the family man since he has no dependents and thus should be able to pay his regular amount of taxes. The family man on the other hand sees a little relief from his expenses when he get the tax credits for having dependents.

 

[Marvolo]

I have a better idea. Get rid of the archaic practice of marriage.

 

[chaseter]

Marriage doesn't automatically denote religious undertones. Atheists get married.

But yes, get the government out of the practice of regulating marriage. It's none of their business who can get married.

 

[Marvolo]

Other country's governments handle marriage just fine. The church cermony is just that ceremonial. You have to get married by the goverment at a public office. If you just do it in a church it doesn't count and isn't legally recognized. I like that system. Everyone who wants to get married has to do it at a public office. Go to the court house, and get a marrige document signed. After that if you want to you can do your little ceremonial church cermony. Priests should hold no legal authority and shouldn't be able to sign any marriage document.

 

[Sun_Down]

I also fail to see how a gay marriage affects a straight man's marriage. Is your passing discomfort at seeing 2 dudes in love more important than their right to be happy together?

To certain people, it is. I like to call those people "bigots."

The reason these people can't articulate their argument is that their argument makes no sense. Gay marriage has absolutely zero negative impact on straight marriage, other than making bigots feel "icky."

So yes, let's get the government, religion and bigotry out of marriage.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

NY Times - Opinion | The Married Will Soon Be the Minority

Pew Research Center - Rising Share of U.S. Adults Are Living Without a Spouse or Partner
On key economic outcomes, single adults at prime working age increasingly lag behind those who are married or cohabiting