Government Involvement In Marriage

[Bikeemikey]

Since marriage is a legal contract between two parties, and it is the job of the government to make and enforce laws, the government has a business of being involved in marriage. Marriage needs to be defined in law, and its interests protected; otherwise what could prevent someone from marrying the trees in his garden, and adopt the flowers in his flowerbed as his kids, and claim child benefit for them from the state?

I can't tell if you are being serious or intentionally ridiculous.

Just in case you are being serious; all contracts require consenting parties. At present animals , plants and inanimate objects are not capable of consent - for obvious reasons.

Each kind of unique contract does not need to be defined by law as a contract by design contains its unique conditions, expectations and definitions.

[CV75]

The role of the constitution isn't to reflect the will of the people.

One of it's main framers, James Madison, saw it as a way to check the will of the people...

That is one way to look at it. I see it as both, hence my explanation, “This role should reflect the will of the people, with checks and balances to protect all, like the US constitution.” The most virtuous will of the people is to protect the rights of all as recognized within that society.

Marriage liscences were first instituted to prevent the marriage of consenting adults whose parents disagreed...

Hence reflecting the will of the people (a reflection of social mores) at the applicable jurisdiction.

One of the specific purposes of the US constitution is to prevent this tyranny of the majority.

No; this is not an example of tyranny of the majority. It was not generally perceived as cruel and oppressive until society at large deemed it not to be in its best interests and then these marriage laws and license practices were changed, as society changed.

A proper response to this, in my opinion, wouldn't have been a declaration from the US Supreme Court that these marriages were discriminatory, but that government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (or culture).

That is a fine (dissenting) opinion, but the discrimination rationale is less of a stretch since there is such a close connection between between a culture, its societies and their government. The courts recognized that discrimination was already being corrected at all levels, not just within the government, and so would not make a decision that would demonstrate that the government was not an extension of the culture/society. There is a distincion between separation of church and state and society and state; marriage is as much, if not more, a societal structure as it is a religious one.

The framers of the consitution saw society and government as two different things. To them society was a group of individuals coming together and forming a social contract, recognizing their own sovereign rights, and then forming an government independent of that society to protect those rights. It had to be seperated from society so that it could not be corrupted into tyranny.

Unless one sees the distinction between “majority” and “society.” The framers were drawing upon the most virtuous aspects of their society to propose and then pull this off. And within the context of their own society, there was no tyranny in marriage laws and regulation; that is used more recently to support the argument you are making.

[DH]

We are such a legalistically complex society we need government involved just to deal with things like child support, apportionment of property during divorce, inheritances, medical consent laws, etc.

That. Marriage may be seen as a legal agreement between two people regarding the above things. The state can regulate and enforce these things, whereas the church cannot.

[wenglund]

The Govt can continue to be involved in the issuance of licenses and permits relating to marriage. I can't see any objection behind this. Such licenses do help fast-track complaints that come before the courts around support when the relationship dissolves and there is fiduciary support obligations and question of custody etc.

This portion of your position has no bearing at all on whether such licenses and permits should also provide preferential treatment from the Govt. in terms of access to entitlements and tax treatment. I still think we could remove all such preferential treatment related to marriage but perhaps entertain the idea of still issuing licenses to save the courts time.

In terms of the differrence between a married relationship and an unmarried (defacto) one: it ought not be the case that the a father of a child has any more or less obligation in the support of his children if the couple are married. Traditionally, a part of the history of marriage which I did not see mentioned in your link, unmarried women who got pregnant had no legal claim on the children's fathers at all ; Downton Abbey any one :-). There is a lot about traditional marriage and historic marriage laws that were barbaric and placed huge burdens on women and let men get a way with limited accountability for their behavior.

Many of the movements away from the traditionally legislative perspective on relationships only existing within marriage occurred in an effort to ensure reasonable support and accommodation for those who found themselves in identical situations as married people (eg. just had a baby and the father has left) but with no legal recourse to make claims. Such a shift is a positive move that makes partners in relationships much more accountable for there actions, even in the event they have no piece of paper that says marriage.

Relationships exist outside of marriage.

Many first world nations have dispensed with preferential treatment for relationships period... some have extended it to all relationships married, de-facto, homosexual.

Many first world nations no longer have marriage as the base legislative principle in dealing with relationship disputes and are still capable of resolving the issues relating to custody, partner support obligations, visiting rights, property rights, etc etc at the dissolution of the relationship.

Almost all of the first world nations who do this beat the US in educational standards and have dramatically lower imprisonment rates. (Thats right Wade, those countries have not descended into chaos).

Divorce rates are not at variance with the US, though marriage rates are lower so I am not sure this means much.

So, get rid of the marriage govt. entitlement. Use all the extra money to provide couples and families with free counseling when they are having problems, like the do in New Zealand. Wouldn't that really show you are serious about relationships?

If I understand you correctly, even with all the social forces currently working against marriages and the families in the U.S., resulting in the decline in marriages and increase in divorce, children born out-of-wedlock, single parents, causing an increase in crime, school dropouts, and poverty, you think it is a good idea to take away the governmental incentives for people to get married and stay married?

Aside from the in-feasibility of restructuring 1,138 federal laws (see the GAO statistics), and who knows how many state and local laws, where "benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status," how are you figuring that this will somehow have a positive impact on marriage and family and society and not add to the already increasing burden on courts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Since marriage is a legal contract between two parties, and it is the job of the government to make and enforce laws, the government has a business of being involved in marriage. Marriage needs to be defined in law, and its interests protected; otherwise what could prevent someone from marrying the trees in his garden, and adopt the flowers in his flowerbed as his kids, and claim child benefit for them from the state?

What prevents marrying the trees is splinters.

[wenglund]

Make them all Civil Unions and leave the marriage business to the churches.

This will do nothing in terms of changing the level of involvement of the government in marriages and families. So, I don't see how your suggestion addresses the concern expressed in the OP? It merely changes the name used by the government in referring to marriages. If anything, your suggestion may diminish the secular value inherent in the long and rich tradition of the term "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

What prevents marrying the trees is splinters.

That was funny. LOL

However, there are potentially worse physical and spiritual hazards with two males, and yet that hasn't prevented some from seeking marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

This will do nothing in terms of changing the level of involvement of the government in marriages and families. So, I don't see how your suggestion addresses the concern expressed in the OP? It merely changes the name used by the government in referring to marriages. If anything, your suggestion may diminish the secular value inherent in the long and rich tradition of the term "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The purpose of governments is to enforce contracts, and protect innocent third parties. Anyone of the age of consent can make any contract they want that doesn't violate law. By making all marriages Civil Unions we protect the right to make contract, allow religions and their rich traditions to flourish, to make their own rules for their own members. By protecting innocent third parties we are protecting children from the foolishness of their parents.

The job of government is to protect my physical/financial well being from fraud and abuse. I'll worry about my own spiritual well being.

[The Nehor]

What prevents marrying the trees is splinters.

You are marrying the wrong kinds of trees.

[wenglund]

The purpose of governments is to enforce contracts, and protect innocent third parties. Anyone of the age of consent can make any contract they want that doesn't violate law. By making all marriages Civil Unions we protect the right to make contract, allow religions and their rich traditions to flourish, to make their own rules for their own members. By protecting innocent third parties we are protecting children from the foolishness of their parents.

The job of government is to protect my physical/financial well being from fraud and abuse. I'll worry about my own spiritual well being.

Again, going through the arduous task (1,138 federal laws alone) of changing the legal name of "marriage" to "civil unions" will do nothing to diminish the current job or involvement of government in marriages and families, nor will it alter in the slightest people's rights to enter into a contract. It simply changes the legal name by which the government refers to marriages--a change that merely removes the secular value accumulated in the legal term "marriage" that is absent in the sterile term "civil unions." So, your suggestion doesn't address the specific concern expressed in the OP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You are marrying the wrong kinds of trees.

Prepare to be assaulted by character-assassinating accusations of discrimination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Again, going through the arduous task (1,138 federal laws alone) of changing the legal name of "marriage" to "civil unions" will do nothing to diminish the current job or involvement of government in marriages and families, nor will it alter in the slightest people's rights to enter into a contract. It simply changes the legal name by which the government refers to marriages--a change that merely removes the secular value accumulated in the legal term "marriage" that is absent in the sterile term "civil unions." So, your suggestion doesn't address the specific concern expressed in the OP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually it will extend the legal protections to more people.

[wenglund]

Would the question of the OP even be an issue for any of us were it not for the inane movement in the last quarter century to bastardize the legal definition of marriage?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

Make them all Civil Unions and leave the marriage business to the churches.

Isn't that what they do in Europe?

[thesometimesaint]

You can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all the difference it makes. Broadening the legal protections doesn't bastardize a word anymore than adding words to the dictionary does. Much like in England where everyone is married civilly first. Then can have any church ceremony they want or not.

[wenglund]

Actually it will extend the legal protections to more people.

I think you are confusing legal protections with legal benefits and entitlements.

Be that as it may, the concern expressed in the OP was in regards to getting the government uninvolved in marital and family units. If what you intimate above is correct, then at best your suggested name change will increase governmental involvement by increasing the number of marital-like family units. In short, in the eyes of the OP, your suggestion doesn't solve the problem or issue of governmental involvement, but rather it adds to the problem--inanely as it were.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for all the difference it makes.

Precisely my point.

Broadening the legal protections doesn't bastardize a word anymore than adding words to the dictionary does.

Not that this addressed my question in the least, but no one is claiming that words are being bastardized by broadening so-called legal protections. What I am claiming is that the word "marriage" is being bastardized by radically changing the legal and traditional meaning of that word in such a way that it bastardizes the original meaning. How is it that such a simple and straightforward concept escapes you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Are you familiar with the Constitution of the United States? How about the Gettysburg address? We, the people of these United States, are the government whether we vote for something ourselves or we send representatives to vote for us as they speak in our behalf.

... of the people, by the people, for the people. Our country is what we make of it.

Of course we should be involved in issues like marriage and everything else that has to do with our society. Sheesh.

Some people seem to think the "government" is somebody else other than us, but we the people of this country are our own government just as we in the Church are the government of the Church and we in any other organization are the governing body of that organization.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Ahab

[Damien the Leper]

Maybe this could go in the current thread on same sex marriage...but I more want to focus on both types (heterosexual and homosexual) and the involvement of government with both.

Do you believe it is appropriate for government to be involved in any type of marriage?

I do not believe that the government should be involved in religious marital ceremonies. If the government were to decide on its own form of marriage that is in place for all persons then I would have no problem with it. The philosophical problem arises when the word "marriage" enters the discussion. The traditional perspective does not automatically constitute what is right. It is just an opinion based on cultural and sociological experience. No religion owns the "say so" or rights to the word marriage. Such an assumption is ridiculous just as if someone were to say that the gays own rainbows.

For myself, the more and more I think about it, the more I come to believe that the answer is no. To take what is a religious or cultural custom, and to declare who does or doesn't have a right to it places a dangerous amount of power in the government's hands. Restricting it or declaring all to have this right actually favours certain beliefs above others, and comes dangerously close to the mixing of church and state (I lump most athesitic/agnostic groups into "churches", which I define as organized groups of belief/non-belief).

This, the bolded portion, I do agree with you. However, in reviewing the Constitution (American) there is no argument to be made for a separation of church and state. However, based on the wording of the Constitution and some writings concerning it, it would seem that the Constitution establishes a system that protects Religion from the Government (so long as religion doesn't break laws) and it also protects the Government from Religion. I believe this is clearly demonstrated by the Revolution and the separation from not only the monarchy of England but the Church of England's rule.

Taking the current issue of same sex marriage, if a government elevates one position it is, in a sense, a legal recognition that one belief system is wrong. A government which sides with the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman there is an evelation of those groups holding that belief, and a legal condemnation to those who believe otherwise. The same can be said of a government that believes the opposite. I personally believe that either position restricts personal liberty rather than promulgates it. It sets a precedent for the government define what rites are rights in the future. It blurs the line between church and state.

I agree. This is why there should be an Amendment made to the Constitution that dissolves any religious influence in the government.

My solution? Get rid of marriage liscences.

How dare you! Don't let the Mormons or Evangelicals hear you say that...oops! Too late. (Just kidding). But I do agree. Perhaps those pieces of paper are in fact the problem. If the government gets rid of them then they should not have to recognize a religious "marriage" or "commitment ceremony" by the same reasoning.

The granting of a marriage liscence places it on par with that of a driving liscence. We've granted the state the right to decide who can and cannot participate in a cultural custom. The government could, theoretically, pick and choose who can and cannot marry. While this isn't abused often, there are cases in the past, and who says that they couldn't increase in the future. I'm not saying that they will, but I'm not comfortable with even the potential abuse of power.

As am I. I agree with your point here.

I believe this actually allows for an incredible amount of personal liberty. For members of the Church, it wouldn't decrease the sanctity of marriage. It would be completely in their hands to decided who can and cannot be married in the temple or by a bishop/branch president. There would never be any risk that another type of marriage would be forced on them.

I agree.

For homosexuals, they could find a group or someone willing to marry them.

There are plenty of resources.

An experience I had recently made me realize what I believe the actual fight over same sex marriage to be over. A friend of mine just returned from going to another state (in which same-sex marriage isn't legal) to have a commitment ceremony with her partner with whom she is in a lesbian relationship. Suddenly it hit me. The problem isn't that there are/aren't legal restrictions on groups out there willing to perform ceremonies...it's all based around a piece of bureaucratic paper...who can and cannot get that paper. I began to ask myself, why should government have control over that piece of paper?

Agreed.

My position on this isn't in favour for either hetersexual-only marriage or homosexual marriage. It's that government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. My position is that government shouldn't have a position. They take a hands off approach, saying "Hey, don't ask us who can or cannot get married." Where a couple's rights to estate, insurance, etc is concerned a declaration of communal living should suffice. I think even those(most of those) who believe that marraige should be between only a man or a woman agree that gay couples should have the right to live together and be able to pool resources.

Again, I agree.

I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't want to invite discussion or even dissent. Feel free to blast my position away, support it, or even give a different option.

You did well, friend. Thank you.

[wenglund]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that the person here seemingly most passionate in defending and protecting and promote the institution of marriage, including through governmental means, has yet to marry during his 60 years on this earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that the person here seemingly most passionate in defending and protecting and promote the institution of marriage, including through governmental means, has yet to marry during his 60 years on this earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not strange at all... Though you not having married may explain a few of your ideas as to the purpose of marriage and what it is.

[slamarwi]

Ok here is my take on the marriage license conundrum - in a roundabout way.

In order for the government to provide "equal stuff for all" and ensure financial and physical security for all citizens, it will be necessary to impose more regulation upon the citizens of the US/World. More regulation tends to be expensive, and will necessarily increase taxes and a redistribution of wealth (rich people have too much as it is).

From a government perspective it really makes more sense to increase the number and types of licenses/fees for those seeking to live as couples, thereby increasing overall revenues. This could include things like secular/religious ceremony coordination fees, "relationship type" tariffs, with heterosexual unions being the most expensive (due to probable human proliferation) and homosexual or mixed species costing substantially less.

Other innovative charges such as excessive groom and bride accoutrements fees, a progressive child tax, an annual anniversary assessment and of course a "temple" or "church affiliation" tax would all be helpful fiscal additions.

Governments always increase in size over time (except in instances of war, revolution and natural disaster). An lesser example of this growth might be something like single-payer health care, but on a grander scale, a one-world government is the ultimate prize.

In summary, it would be great to see our government become less invasive in our personal lives, but with the country confirming the election of a progressive, socialist president, we will incur more government intervention, not less.

het beste - lwiscombe

[canard78]

What prevents marrying the trees is splinters.

I met a dog the other day who had tried to mate with a tree like that.

"How was it?" I asked

"Ruff," said the dog

"Why's that?" I asked

"Bark," said the dog

To teach the tree a lesson I doused it in gasoline and threw on a match.

"Woof," said the dog

[halconero]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that the person here seemingly most passionate in defending and protecting and promote the institution of marriage, including through governmental means, has yet to marry during his 60 years on this earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For myself, it is my passion and understanding for the new and everlasting covenant of marriage that leads me to make the suggestions that I do. I do have a testimony that the doctrinal definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman. That exaltation can only be achieved in such a pairing.

I want to protect that, which leads me to want to free that ordinance from government involvement.

If the government restricts the use of a marriage license to one group, we've allowed them to possibly restrict it in the future to the exclusion of groups now considered acceptable for marriage. If the government expands the rights to a marriage license to all, who's to say that they couldn't legally impose the right of marriage on a private group that doesn't agree with them?

I believe that the removal of government from the marriage arena will foster a liberty which will safeguard the Church. Government involvement in marriage has been used to abuse and persecute not only our spiritual (and for some of us literal) ancestors in the Church, but those of other races and cultures. The social benefits are, for the most part, available outside of marriage, and in fact, supported by the Church, "The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." (Church Newsroom)

[treeface]

I can see merit in the argument that government has no business being in the marriage business.

But when I look at the sort of abuses that FLDS leader Warren Jeffs was convicted of, I see an argument for more government involvement in marriage, not less. Rather than seeing middle-aged men convicted of rape for their involvement in forcing underage girls into marriage against their wills, I'd rather see those marriages not take place to begin with. Essentially the FLDS perform "underground" marriages because their style of marriage is illegal, so it's no surprise that something illegal to begin with results in abuses. If the government is ideally an extension of the society that elected it, and if that society (us) cares about those girls, I think we'd do better to legalize their form of marriage and regulate it. That way, the FLDS and other such groups would have a course of action available that would put them on the right side of the law, rather than living as outlaws, and in return they'd have to conform to measures which would protect teenage girls from forced marriages.

Also, one of the ethnic groups in my background historically has a high rate of inbreeding; that is, marriage between people who are close blood relatives. That should be regulated, and only the government is going to do so. I know of an instance where an engaged couple discovered, through government-mandated blood tests, that they were biological half-brother and half-sister.

Halconero, in general I like the idea of reduced government intrusion, but I don't see how zero government involvement in marriage would be a step in the right direction in either of the above situations.

Edited November 23, 2012 by treeface