Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[CASteinman]

Since certain people seem to be struggling mightily to avoid accepting the reasonable position that government involvement in marriage was due, in part, to their interest in population growth, I am wondering if they will struggle as much, if not more, with the seemly obvious notion that governments have become involved with marriage because of their interest in promoting "responsible procreation"?

How about it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I do not know if Governments got involved because of their interest in population growth -- at least not usually. But I know of cases where they did and I believe that when they did not, it was because they were not paying attention to something that they should be concerned with. I think England probably got involved because there was an opening to collect fees in the form of Bonds.

I do believe that they have an interest in regulating marriage separate from population growth -- that is to have a stable society.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I do not know if Governments got involved because of their interest in population growth -- at least not usually. But I know of cases where they did and I believe that when they did not, it was because they were not paying attention to something that they should be concerned with. I think England probably got involved because there was an opening to collect fees in the form of Bonds.

I do believe that they have an interest in regulating marriage separate from population growth -- that is to have a stable society.

I agree with most of this, except maybe the not paying attention part.

[CASteinman]

I agree with most of this, except maybe the not paying attention part.

I would have thought you would object to the idea that they should be concerned with it.

[california boy]

I do not know if Governments got involved because of their interest in population growth -- at least not usually. But I know of cases where they did and I believe that when they did not, it was because they were not paying attention to something that they should be concerned with. I think England probably got involved because there was an opening to collect fees in the form of Bonds.

I do believe that they have an interest in regulating marriage separate from population growth -- that is to have a stable society.

I agree with this statement as well. While the government has an interest in regulating marriage, there is no evidence that the government is involved in increasing the population through marriage. When the government starts requiring a commitment to have children as part of the marriage license, then I will change my mind. I think what everyone can agree on is that marriage has a stabilizing influence on society.

Edited April 30, 2013 by california boy

[california boy]

Since you keep repeating this demonstrably false statement, it has now become a lie. I am the only one who has gone to great lengths to provide logical reasons and supportive evidence for each of the points I have made.

You have gone to great lengths to try an present an idea that has no factual basis. When I have pointed out flaws to your argument, you have put them off with "objection noted, I will answer these later"

The government has made certain abortion laws legal because the courts require it, and not because it is in the government's interest to allow, let alone, promote abortions. The court-mandated allowance of abortions in no way suggests that the government doesn't have an interest in population growth through procreation. It simply means that the government's interest is impeded, or made all the greater because of the court ruling.

The courts making abortion legal completely refutes your whole premise that the government has an interest in procreation. I assume you do realize that the courts are part of the government. So the only way you can dispute this fact is by saying that the government is impeded by it's own laws???? Twisted logic.

If you look at the economic history of our nation in relation to the population, and correcting for increased costs, you will plainly see that there has been a significant net benefit to population growth, thus evidentially bridging the so-called leap,

If this was a discussion on economy then I would explore this more with you. As the world becomes more globalized in its economy, population of an individual nation becomes less significant. China would be a good example to explore. While it has the biggest population in the world, it's economy was pretty feeble until just recently when it got involved in the world economy.

his also is now a lie. I have gone to great lengths setting forth a reasoned argument with ample substantiation for that point. You, on the other hand, have simply repeated the same false and baseless counter assertion.

Yeah I am still waiting for answers to my points.

Since you persist in ignoring my arguments and evidence, there is now good reason to not discuss this further with you.

Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah I am pretty much done with you. You seem to want to make assertions over and over again without being able to refute the flaws in your arguments. So carry on with your assertions. It is not like this erroneous concept has any validity with the current legal issues before the Supreme Court. It is a pretty much pointless discussion.

[Stone holm]

I agree with this statement as well. While the government has an interest in regulating marriage, there is no evidence that the government is involved in increasing the population through marriage. When the government starts requiring a commitment to have children as part of the marriage license, then I will change my mind. I think what everyone can agree on is that marriage has a stabilizing influence on society.

I would agree with this. The government and society in general have an interest in children being raised in a stable environment. That could be a caring and devoted single parent , it could be a couple old maid aunts or uncles, or grandparents, or a pair of homosexuals. IMHO it does not include serial monogamous married couples continually at war over custody and support.

[california boy]

I would agree with this. The government and society in general have an interest in children being raised in a stable environment. That could be a caring and devoted single parent , it could be a couple old maid aunts or uncles, or grandparents, or a pair of homosexuals. IMHO it does not include serial monogamous married couples continually at war over custody and support.

As you point out, families can mean a lot of things. As I recall, only 28% of people live in a family that consists of a father, mother and children. I am all in favor of families that consist of a father, mother and children. We as a society should do all we can to encourage such families. But since the majority of Americans do not live in such families, we should also be encouraging any family situation that brings stability and love to children. Often, grandmothers and uncles etc, have stepped forward and unselfishly raised children that were tossed aside by biological parents. I applaud single mothers and single fathers who have taken up the slack and unselfishly devoted their lives to the care of their children. Included in this list of devoted families are gay couples that have cast aside the single life and committed to raise children that often times, through no fault of their own, have been cast aside by their biological parents. Those children have expressed their gratitude over and over again. They often knew the future they faced without being adopted.

[Bikeemikey]

Why should the govt have interests?

I think my concern with this whole conversation is the notion that the govt. as an entity has an agenda... As an advocate for limited govt I feel very strongly that this ought not be the case, or at the very least the govt's interests should be extremely narrow.

In my opinion the minute the govt. becomes invested in its own survival you have overreach.

So, for me, if I was willing to cede to the idea that the govt currently has an interest in procreation I would still object on the grounds that such a position is bad govt.

[Stone holm]

Why should the govt have interests?

I think my concern with this whole conversation is the notion that the govt. as an entity has an agenda... As an advocate for limited govt I feel very strongly that this ought not be the case, or at the very least the govt's interests should be extremely narrow.

In my opinion the minute the govt. becomes invested in its own survival you have overreach.

So, for me, if I was willing to cede to the idea that the govt currently has an interest in procreation I would still object on the grounds that such a position is bad govt.

Well I guess that Lincoln would have disagreed with you there as he felt that the first principle of government is to make sure it survives. Having said that, I think the case for the government having an interest in increasing population growth and that it is doing so via marriage is not at all convincing, I have yet to read anything on this thread that is convincing that the United States has such an interest. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the difference between the government having an interest in the welfare and proper raising of its future citizens (children), and the idea that it is intentionally promoting procreation. The support for the notion of the United States being in the business of encouraging baby production through marriage is IMHO non-existent. But I will await Wenglund's promised SCOTUS opinions that support that idea. While I believe an economically strong male and female couple who are caring and dedicated to rearing their children is probably ideal, I don't take that to mean that because occasionally such parents exist in reality, is no grounds to deny the existence of other possibilities which may well do a very good job of parenting and often a better job than just a male and female couple who are not economically strong and are not caring. The government's interest is in stability, not procreation.

[go_utes01]

Well I guess that Lincoln would have disagreed with you there as he felt that the first principle of government is to make sure it survives. Having said that, I think the case for the government having an interest in increasing population growth and that it is doing so via marriage is not at all convincing, I have yet to read anything on this thread that is convincing that the United States has such an interest. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the difference between the government having an interest in the welfare and proper raising of its future citizens (children), and the idea that it is intentionally promoting procreation. The support for the notion of the United States being in the business of encouraging baby production through marriage is IMHO non-existent. But I will await Wenglund's promised SCOTUS opinions that support that idea. While I believe an economically strong male and female couple who are caring and dedicated to rearing their children is probably ideal, I don't take that to mean that because occasionally such parents exist in reality, is no grounds to deny the existence of other possibilities which may well do a very good job of parenting and often a better job than just a male and female couple who are not economically strong and are not caring. The government's interest is in stability, not procreation.

To be clear, even if other relationships are not recognized/provided stamp of approval by the state does not, repeat does not, "deny the existence of other possibilities." Do you want to recognize all other possibilities as "marriages"? That is the question. As it stands, same-sex relationships are not outlawed, they are just not recognized by many states as "marriages." You agree that an intact mother and father, raising their children is ideal - if the government is going to be in the business of incentivizing certain relationships over others, why not incentivize the ideal? I agree with Wade that the government has an interest in procreation within stable family units and has legitimately pursued that interest through regulating marriage and providing tax incentives, etc. However, a view of the statistics regarding marriage and single-parent households tends to demonstrate that state incentives are not working all that great. Maybe the government should get out of the business of regulating personal relationships all together.

[rockpond]

Marital laws are intended, in part, to intelligently and responsibly promote population growth through procreation.

The laws that are dependent upon population growth, particularly through procreation, are Social Security and other welfare and entitlement programs. Governmental budgets and tax laws are also dependent, to a degree, on population growth.

Okay. However, again, I can't think of a single constitutional argument that would come anywhere close to questioning the "right" of federal or state governments to legislating marriage, even were the intent of the marital legislation, in part, to fulfill the government's (i.e. people's) interest in promoting population growth through procreation. Can you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My understanding is that the federal government can only do that which is authorized by the constitution. I think that incentivizing procreating is outside of that scope even if some citizens and some in the government think it is of interest.

[rockpond]

But this is restricted by the 2nd Amendment.

And they do that.

And they do that.

You give a list of things where they have an interest and do enact legislation as support for them not having the right to enact legislation in those areas?

How does that pass for support for your argument?

Of course Government has the right to pass laws in support of most things in its sphere of interest. It is restricted only by the Constitution.

The point I was trying to make was that people in our government have an interest in doing a lot of things. And whether they have an interest... and whether they do something toward that interest... doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right thing to do.

Specifically to Wade's point: Just because some in the government may have an interest in promoting procreation, it doesn't mean that it's the correct thing for the government to do.

[rockpond]

As with california boy, your comments above simply reaffirms and clarifies your baseless position, meanders somewhat tangentially, and doesn't engage the arguments and substantiations that has been presented. At best, it is question begging.

Here is a brief summary of my argument (the substantiating facts can be found earlier in the thread):

A. Governments, including modern U.S., have an interest in population growth through procreation (in addition to, and perhaps even preferential to, immigration).

B. In terms of overall cost/benefits, it has been in the interest of governments, including modern U.S., to promote procreative population growth through marriage.

C. It is also in the interest of governments, including the U.S., to channel the procreative drive into marriage, or in other words, promote procreation through marriage.

D. Marital laws, including in modern U.S., then, are laws that promote population growth through procreation and promote procreation through marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand what you are asserting with respect to A, B, & C. But I'm not following D. Which marital laws promote procreation?

So far you've cited Social Security and Welfare.

While social security may have a short-term solvency issue that could be helped by increasing the population, the law itself wasn't enacted to promote procreation through marriage.

I'm not sure how Welfare promotes procreation other than giving handouts to parents who couldn't otherwise afford to care for their children.

Is this the case that you are building or is there more to it?

[Stone holm]

My understanding is that the federal government can only do that which is authorized by the constitution. I think that incentivizing procreating is outside of that scope even if some citizens and some in the government think it is of interest.

Yeah, that is a murky issue as the authorization clauses are pretty vague and broad, but there is one Justice in the DOMA case who commentators think might vote to throw DOMA overboard on a State's rights basis. Neither the liberal nor the conservative wings of SCOTUS appear to agree with Justice Kennedy, but we may see a plurality opinion with Kennedy ruling on the basis of strict construction and State's rights. Kennedy seemed to be suggesting that the Federal Government had no business messing with marriage laws.

[wenglund]

I do believe that they have an interest in regulating marriage separate from population growth -- that is to have a stable society.

I think a stable society is somewhat tied to population growth, though perhaps more tied to "responsible procreation." As I mentioned earlier, there is much to be learned from black inner cities about the socio-economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, and thus the significant governmental interest in promoting "responsible procreation" through marriage.

The problem with the move to legalize so-called SSM, besides diluting the meaning and meaningfulness of marriage, is in order for SSM to make any sense, they have to discount or dismiss procreation as a significant governmental interest. The extent to which SSM advocates have slipped into denial and danced thus far in this thread, has been instructive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

I think a stable society is somewhat tied to population growth, though perhaps more tied to "responsible procreation." As I mentioned earlier, there is much to be learned from black inner cities about the socio-economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, and thus the significant governmental interest in promoting "responsible procreation" through marriage.

The problem with the move to legalize so-called SSM, besides diluting the meaning and meaningfulness of marriage, is in order for SSM to make any sense, they have to discount or dismiss procreation as a significant governmental interest. The extent to which SSM advocates have slipped into denial and danced thus far in this thread, has been instructive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't see a stable society being tied to population growth. Where do you see that tie?

[wenglund]

Why should the govt have interests?

As intimated earlier, when I speak of governmental interest, particularly in terms of democracies, I am speaking of the interest of "the people" exercised through the auspices of the government. So, to me, the reason that the governments have interests is because "the people" have interests.

I think my concern with this whole conversation is the notion that the govt. as an entity has an agenda... As an advocate for limited govt I feel very strongly that this ought not be the case, or at the very least the govt's interests should be extremely narrow.

In my opinion the minute the govt. becomes invested in its own survival you have overreach.

Since I don't look at government as a separate entity from "the people," and I would equate survival of the government with survival of "the people," I don't share your concern--though I, too, am an advocate for limited government, People can reasonably disagree, though, about whether or not government should be limited such that it isn't involved in marriage, but, again, that is a discussion for another thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I think a stable society is somewhat tied to population growth, though perhaps more tied to "responsible procreation." As I mentioned earlier, there is much to be learned from black inner cities about the socio-economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, and thus the significant governmental interest in promoting "responsible procreation" through marriage.

The problem with the move to legalize so-called SSM, besides diluting the meaning and meaningfulness of marriage, is in order for SSM to make any sense, they have to discount or dismiss procreation as a significant governmental interest. The extent to which SSM advocates have slipped into denial and danced thus far in this thread, has been instructive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My aunt has recently announced that she and her long-time partner will marry within the next year. It doesn't dilute the meaning of marriage at all for me. I'm grateful that they are making that commitment to one another.

My aunt and her future wife will have about the procreative abilities as when her own mother re-married late in life. Further, my aunt's marriage will have absolutely no effect on the procreative potential of the rest of the nation since she has no intention of ever producing a child with a man.

[rockpond]

As intimated earlier, when I speak of governmental interest, particularly in terms of democracies, I am speaking of the interest of "the people" exercised through the auspices of the government. So, to me, the reason that the governments have interests is because "the people" have interests.

Since I don't look at government as a separate entity from "the people," and I would equate survival of the government with survival of "the people," I don't share your concern--though I, too, am an advocate for limited government, People can reasonably disagree, though, about whether or not government should be limited such that it isn't involved in marriage, but, again, that is a discussion for another thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So if the people demonstrate an interest in allowing legal recognition of same gender marriages, will that sway your opinion?

[Stone holm]

My aunt has recently announced that she and her long-time partner will marry within the next year. It doesn't dilute the meaning of marriage at all for me. I'm grateful that they are making that commitment to one another.

My aunt and her future wife will have about the procreative abilities as when her own mother re-married late in life. Further, my aunt's marriage will have absolutely no effect on the procreative potential of the rest of the nation since she has no intention of ever producing a child with a man.

Oh my, you mean that she decided not to procreate because of gay marriage? Why she is derailing all these incentives that marriage is supposed to produce kids. The sky is falling here it landing....!!!!

[wenglund]

My understanding is that the federal government can only do that which is authorized by the constitution. I think that incentivizing procreating is outside of that scope even if some citizens and some in the government think it is of interest.

I understand that the power to regulate marriage is reserved to the states, but I am unaware of any provision in the Constitution that would prevent the federal government from incentivizing whatever, most particularly marriage. Could you substantiate your claim--it would be helpful if you could provide court rulings or analysis from constitutional scholars? I would be interested to hear it because it would bode as badly, if not more so for SSM as traditional marriage.

In fact, the intent of the Constitution is to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"

To me, the portions in bold (particularly regarding our Posterity), are made possible, in part, through marriage and governmental involvement therein.

Even if you are correct about the federal government (I don't believe you are), my arguments still apply to the state governments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I understand that the power to regulate marriage is reserved to the states, but I am unaware of any provision in the Constitution that would prevent the federal government from incentivizing whatever, most particularly marriage. Could you substantiate your claim--it would be helpful if you could provide court rulings or analysis from constitutional scholars? I would be interested to hear it because it would bode as badly, if not more so for SSM as traditional marriage.

In fact, the intent of the Constitution is to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"

To me, the portions in bold (particularly regarding our Posterity), are made possible, in part, through marriage and governmental involvement therein.

Even if you are correct about the federal government (I don't believe you are), my arguments still apply to the state governments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure how to substantiate it... you are saying that there is nothing that restricts it. I am saying that there is nothing the specifically permits it. You show your "nothing" and I'll show mine.

I think we just have different views of how the federal government should operate.

The government had no part in creating my posterity. <grin> But, if you want to use that line of thinking than I'm going to argue that promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty applies to homosexual citizens as well. They also have posterity - even homosexual unions can adopt or create children with the same medical assistance that some of my (heterosexual) family members have used.

So, if you are interested in increasing procreation within the bonds of marriage it would seem wise to allow all couples to marry.

[wenglund]

I don't see a stable society being tied to population growth. Where do you see that tie?

I said "somewhat tied." See my posts #98 and #100. Briefly, think of societies as akin to living things, if they aren't in the process of growing, then they are in the process of dying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

My aunt has recently announced that she and her long-time partner will marry within the next year. It doesn't dilute the meaning of marriage at all for me. I'm grateful that they are making that commitment to one another.

My aunt and her future wife will have about the procreative abilities as when her own mother re-married late in life. Further, my aunt's marriage will have absolutely no effect on the procreative potential of the rest of the nation since she has no intention of ever producing a child with a man.

Both these issues are off-topic, and though I have counter responses, I will refrain and leave it as is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Both these issues are off-topic, and though I have counter responses, I will refrain and leave it as is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair enough. I was just providing a counterpoint to your statements.