Should the State Sanction Marriage?

[Booko]

Even if the government were to change the name from "marriage license" to "legal relationship license", everyone would still call it a marriage license, and even though my wedding wasn't in a church or presided over by a monotheistic clergy, I'll still say I am married.

What's so terrible about that?

Our wedding wasn't in a church or presided over by a monotheistic clergy. The thing is, the state recognizes our "legal relationship license" but in other cases it doesn't. Essentially the state is trying to make moral judgments about sexual relationships. That strikes me as rather odd. The state has an interest in ensuring consent of parties is obtained (which rather eliminates children getting married or forced weddings), but what other interest would the state have?

The limitations we have now come straight out of a set of religious traditions, and they do not show any reason why other forms of marriage would be damaging to society. If the state wants to make moral judgements like that, it should have to be upfront about what the damage is and not just blindly follow tradition.

 

[Booko]

I didn't say "religious," I said "spiritual [and/or] cultural."

Marriage is a ritual, whether religious or secular. I don't believe that it should have anything to do with the legal status of a household.

Anyway, I think you're missing the point. I'm saying that anyone should be able to get a household license, regardless of the nature of their relationship, provided they live as a single household. Platonic friends, parents and their adult children, anyone. Take marriage of whatever definition completely out of the equation.

It's extreme, I know, but that's how I feel.

I see your point, Storm. It does seem rather odd that if 2 siblings live together, the one wholly supporting the other, we give them zip for breaks, but if only they were having sex, they get advantages.

 

[Storm]

I see your point, Storm. It does seem rather odd that if 2 siblings live together, the one wholly supporting the other, we give them zip for breaks, but if only they were having sex, they get advantages.

Thank you

 

[Booko]

In fact, the real whopper of interesting is that I am allowed by the state to legalize a marriage.

Yup. I've "married" people legally. Now that's odd.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Some folks are most comfortable blindly following tradition. People do something for thousands of years and all of a sudden someone says, lets do it differently.

Why?

 

[Booko]

Some folks are most comfortable blindly following tradition. People do something for thousands of years and all of a sudden someone says, lets do it differently.

Why?

What have we done for thousands of years, Rick? The state has not legally recognized marriages for most of human history, near as I can tell. It was the Church's business in Christendom and the state had nothing to say about it.

The notion that gov't should have a say seems relatively new.

Well, there are reasons to have some restrictions on marriage, and the gov't may have something to say about it, but those instances are pretty simple to explain. Like you can't marry siblings (health issues), age limitations (children cannot give consent) -- those sorts of limitations make sense for the gov't to stick their nose in.

Frankly, I see a huge contradiction in the notion of "freedom of religion" in this country when members of some religions are not allowed to have up to four wives, as their religion allows.

 

[MotoEric]

Do religions have a monopoly on the word marriage that prevents the government from using it? Can marriage refer both to a religious and legal union, or only one?

I don't think that the majority would have a problem recognizing that in a particular circumstance the word 'marriage' is part of a specific nomenclature and means a specific type of spiritual binding.

Yes, the word can and will be used by some interchangebly with civil unions but my basic contention is that the government should not be in the marriage business.

Leave 'marriages' to the Church and 'civil unions' to the government.

Eric

 

[MotoEric]

Yes, the importance of strong families. I believe that one reason that governments all over the world recognize and honor marriages is because they understand the important role that strong families play in the perpetuation of strong societies and strong nations. Marriage is a foundational part of a healthy family and strong families are the foundation of a strong nation.

So, you believe that the government should be involved actively in the support of what society views as a common good?

I believe in a much more limited government than that, but I appreciate your input and respect your opinion!

Eric

 

[Booko]

So, you believe that the government should be involved actively in the support of what society views as a common good?

Like Polaris, I do believe that strong families are the foundation of a strong nation. Many of our current ills can be looked at as related to the breakdown of families that our culture has had of late. Oh, it's not like the ills were not here before, but at some point a different in quantity becomes a difference in kind.

But support for strong families can be accomplished with civil unions just as well and leaving the moral details between religions and adherents.

It makes for a much better separation of church and state, I think.

 

[Ðanisty]

Do religions have a monopoly on the word marriage that prevents the government from using it? Can marriage refer both to a religious and legal union, or only one?

It already does refer to both.

Some folks are most comfortable blindly following tradition. People do something for thousands of years and all of a sudden someone says, lets do it differently.

Why?

Why are some folks most comfortable blindly following tradition? Should I interfere with that and prevent them from blindly following tradition? I don't think so. And I don't think those folks should be butting in on everyone else either. Follow what you want, but don't try to force that on others.

Frankly, I see a huge contradiction in the notion of "freedom of religion" in this country when members of some religions are not allowed to have up to four wives, as their religion allows.

But Booko, that doesn't blindly follow tradition! Besides, you know that "freedom of religion" really just means "freedom of Christian denomination."

 

[Reverend Rick]

Well, there are reasons to have some restrictions on marriage, and the gov't may have something to say about it, but those instances are pretty simple to explain. Like you can't marry siblings (health issues), age limitations (children cannot give consent) -- those sorts of limitations make sense for the gov't to stick their nose in.

Children can not give consent to be married, but they can give consent to have an abortion without their parents knowledge. The notion that the state knows best is debatable.

 

[Polaris]

So, you believe that the government should be involved actively in the support of what society views as a common good?

I'm not sure what you mean by "involved actively", I'm definitely not a big government involvement proponent. For the most part I have no problems with the status quo -- recognition of legally performed marriages, and benefits (ie tax breaks, etc) that to a certain extent promote or encourage couples to get married. I see such benefits as family-based benefits that are intended to help out and encourage the establishment of families.

 

[McBell]

The separation of church and state and the issue of marriage licenses by the state are in conflict.

No it isn't.
so long as marriage is a legal contract the state has to be involved.

If Gay's are ever going to be able to be married, the separation would be a giant step for them. There are churches that would marry them and they would be married.

I agree.
What I do not understand is this attitude that religion owns the word marriage.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. This is not a spiritual issue, it's about rights and benefits. Let everyone have a civil union with or without a marriage ceremony. Let anyone get married with or without a civil union. It would be just as simple as choosing not to have a prenup.

Sounds good to me.
Make marriage nothing more than a religious ceremony, like communion, and civil unions the legal contract that marriage currently is.
That way those who want the marriage without the legals can understand what same sex couples are going through now.
But wait...
Are you now going to make the claim that you want the legalities that go with what marriage is now to transfer to the religious ceremony you want marriage to be?

 

[Aqualung]

Sounds good to me.
Make marriage nothing more than a religious ceremony, like communion, and civil unions the legal contract that marriage currently is.

Exactly.