Should the State Sanction Marriage?

[MotoEric]

Hi,

Being someone who has decided libertarian leanings, I was wondering what your thoughts were on disallowing the government from having anything to do with marriage.

I think that most people here (I may be wrong) believe that marriage is or should be a spiritual union blessed by God. Why on earth should the government be involved with that?

Create some form of a civil union that is a legally recognized and binding agreement, but leave marriage to Church's (not the chicken place).

Am I missing something?

Thoughts?

Eric

 

[Storm]

That's my stance. The state has no business granting special rights and priviledges to any religious ritual.

 

[madhatter85]

it's not merely a religious ritual.

if you are married in another country and youa re a resident in the U.S.. you have to get married again when you are here.

 

[Storm]

it's not merely a religious ritual.

if you are married in another country and youa re a resident in the U.S.. you have to get married again when you are here.

And that's the problem.

 

[MaddLlama]

One thing that really aggravates me about this issue is that people don't seem to understand that this is the system already in place. The government just happens to be using the word "marriage" instead of something else, but the system doesn't interfere with the religious arena at all.

"Civil Union" is something that is legally completely different from marriage.

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?

If religions have a monopoly on the word "marriage", are some other religions barred from using it?

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?

 

[MaddLlama]

That's my stance. The state has no business granting special rights and priviledges to any religious ritual.

You don't have to have a religious ritual in order to be considered legally married. You don't have to have any ritual at all, actually. You just fill out some paperwork, give some clerk a few dollars, and they send you a paper in the mail that says you're legally married.

Religious (or non-religious) rituals are for the benefit of the couple, not the state, and aren't necessary.

 

[Polaris]

Being someone who has decided libertarian leanings, I was wondering what your thoughts were on disallowing the government from having anything to do with marriage.

Am I missing something?

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.

 

[Storm]

You don't have to have a religious ritual in order to be considered legally married. You don't have to have any ritual at all, actually. You just fill out some paperwork, give some clerk a few dollars, and they send you a paper in the mail that says you're legally married.

Religious (or non-religious) rituals are for the benefit of the couple, not the state, and aren't necessary.

Actually, I don't think there should be any such thing as "legal marriage." I think that it should be replaced by something completely different, a kind of household contract available to any people who wish to live as a single household. Leave marriage out of it.

I do believe that marriage is a spiritual / cultural affair, and should have nothing to do with the legal status of a household.

 

[MaddLlama]

Actually, I don't think there should be any such thing as "legal marriage." I think that it should be replaced by something completely different, a kind of household contract available to any people who wish to live as a single household. Leave marriage out of it.

I do believe that marriage is a spiritual / cultural affair, and should have nothing to do with the legal status of a household.

So, then only religious people should be allowed to use the word "marriage" when talking about their relationship?

 

[Storm]

So, then only religious people should be allowed to use the word "marriage" when talking about their relationship?

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.

 

[Aqualung]

I can't even decide if a government should sanction a civil union. Can somebody help me out by briefly listing out or pointing to me to a site that talks about the things that marriage/civil unions allow that aren't allowed with other living situations?

 

[Aqualung]

Do religions have a monopoly on the word marriage that prevents the government from using it?

I kind of like to think of it as the USPS having a monopoly on "First Class Mail". You can still send letters through UPS et al., but you can't send "First Class Mail". You theoretically should be able to contract with another person for certain sociopolitical rights, but "Marriage" is not the word for a mere governmental contract.

 

[MaddLlama]

I kind of like to think of it as the USPS having a monopoly on "First Class Mail". You can still send letters through UPS et al., but you can't send "First Class Mail". You theoretically should be able to contract with another person for certain sociopolitical rights, but "Marriage" is not the word for a mere governmental contract.

Why not?

 

[Mathematician]

If marriage needs state recognition to survive, I don't think it should exist.

Yep. Get rid of it. Between the persons, churches, and community.

 

[Aqualung]

Why not?

Meh, I don't know. I just made that up off the top of my head to be contradictory.

 

[McBell]

Interestingly enough, when you strip all the window dressing and fluff that religion puts on marriage, what you are left with is a legal contract in which the state allows the church to legalize.
Interestingly enough also is the fact that a ships captain is also allowed, by the state, to legalize marriage.

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

 

[Reverend Rick]

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

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.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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 is confusing at best.

I will tell you what the problem is.

While I want everyone in this country to be equal and enjoy the same rights and privileges, what the Gay community is asking that the government sanction their relationship. Sanction as in say it is OK. Sanction as in, say it is normal. The word "marriage" is important to Gays. It says, I am the same as you. It is a religious word and therefore in the name of equal rights, would be construed as acceptable by religious standards as well.

Gays will be able to get married.
Gays will have the same rights.
As long as the government has a say in it, it is up to the people. Most people are against Gay marriage.

 

[Nanda]

Get rid of it.

A man after my own heart.

 

[Booko]

Being someone who has decided libertarian leanings, I was wondering what your thoughts were on disallowing the government from having anything to do with marriage.

I've thought this about since I was old enough to form a rational thought. I don't see what stake the state has in marriage, generally, other than when it comes to the perpetuation of society through child-rearing and raising.

I think that most people here (I may be wrong) believe that marriage is or should be a spiritual union blessed by God. Why on earth should the government be involved with that?

Create some form of a civil union that is a legally recognized and binding agreement, but leave marriage to Church's (not the chicken place).

Am I missing something?

Not that I know of. There is a societal interest in protection of children, and the state may have something to say about that. But I've never understood what interest the state has in who's living with whom.

The state may offer the protection of law for contractual agreements between the parties of course, but what that has to do with who's doing whom I have no earthly idea.