• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

government in marriage

Melchior

New member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
5
Location
Palm Beach, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am curious, how would you feel if government got out of the marriage business?

Also, Gay Marriage: If Government got out of marriage altogether, how would that affect your opinion in this issue?

I personally want government out of marriage. Marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is a private and personal contract between two consenting adults. We have an unlimited right to contract.

The government originally wasn't in the marriage business, nor does it have any business being in that business.. It started in 1865, after the Civil War, when government decided they needed to regulate white-black marriages, and as with all things, you give the government an inch, and they take a mile. Before you knew it, you needed a permit not just for racially mixed marriages, but for any kind of marriage at all...
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, actually you've over simplified the history of governmental involvement in marriage. Interracial marriage was against the laws of most states. This didn't get changed until 1969 with "Loving vs. Virginia."


But....

The rest of your post does bring up some interesting ideas. Not all that new, but interesting never the less.
I'm divided about this issue. Sure, it sounds ok superficially, but I doubt that any attempt to do so would ever succeed. Too many people equate marriage with governmental involvement as is. This is why there is even an issue over gay marriage in the first place.
Attempts to divorce the word "marriage" from its legal/governmental attachments is just too hard a concept for most people to accept.

Personally I don't care either way, as long as the legal contracts which allow for attachment of legal rights, protections and benefits is completely equal and disregarding of gender or sexual orientation of the participants thereof, I don't care what it's called. Just as long as EVERY contract between two consenting adult human beings is called the same thing. Marriage, Civil Union, Civil Marriage whatever.
There should be no discrimination based on race, religion, physical ability {physical mind you...not mental capacity because that's a whole separate can of worms}, gender or sexual orientation whatsoever. Whatever rights, protections and/or benefits afforded to such contracts should remain the same.
Let Churches keep their word "Marriage" for all I care.

But, I just don't see it going too far.
 

Melchior

New member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
5
Location
Palm Beach, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hello JustineCredible. :2wave:

JustineCredible said:
Well, actually you've over simplified the history of governmental involvement in marriage. Interracial marriage was against the laws of most states. This didn't get changed until 1969 with "Loving vs. Virginia."
I only mentioned what was important and relative to this subject. I like to keep details short so I have room for the rest of my posts. ;)

JustineCredible said:
I'm divided about this issue. Sure, it sounds ok superficially, but I doubt that any attempt to do so would ever succeed. Too many people equate marriage with governmental involvement as is. This is why there is even an issue over gay marriage in the first place.
Attempts to divorce the word "marriage" from its legal/governmental attachments is just too hard a concept for most people to accept.
Well then we would have to raise awareness. Its depressing that citizens are happy with government intrustion into their personal lives, but that could always change.

The contraversy over the gay marriage issue is pathetic and fueled by heterosexism, I have yet to hear a logical or constitutional argument against allowing same sex marriage. :roll:

JustineCredible said:
Personally I don't care either way, as long as the legal contracts which allow for attachment of legal rights, protections and benefits is completely equal and disregarding of gender or sexual orientation of the participants thereof, I don't care what it's called. Just as long as EVERY contract between two consenting adult human beings is called the same thing. Marriage, Civil Union, Civil Marriage whatever.
There should be no discrimination based on race, religion, physical ability {physical mind you...not mental capacity because that's a whole separate can of worms}, gender or sexual orientation whatsoever. Whatever rights, protections and/or benefits afforded to such contracts should remain the same.
Let Churches keep their word "Marriage" for all I care.
I agree that independent churches should have the freedom to accept or reject anyone they wish for whatever reason.

But I find your apathetic or "whatever" attitude toward government involvement disturbing. We have an unlimited right to contract and government has no business providing or removing benefits regarding a personal contract like marriage.


JustineCredible said:
But, I just don't see it going too far.
The situation can always change, we are in charge. :shoot
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The government should not be involved in marriage. It is a religion institution. Call it civil unions, or something to that effect, for everyone. The churches can allow or deny anyone they want for marriage then.
 

Lilith

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
Centrist Coast of California
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think I agree with these things. This one is always tough for me. I believe int he freedom of all. I believe the government governs too much already. I'm a christian so I'm kinda swayed on the "marriage" being biblical thing. But I wouldn't impose tht on others... so... I think making "marriage" officially a religious term and letting others have civil unions is probably what I'd vote for so far.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lilith said:
I'm a christian so I'm kinda swayed on the "marriage" being biblical thing.
To counter that thought, other religions have marriage as well. It's not a concept exclusive to the Bible nor Christianity.
 

Lilith

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
Centrist Coast of California
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
To counter that thought, other religions have marriage as well. It's not a concept exclusive to the Bible nor Christianity.
which is why i later used the word "religious." ;)
 

beautymrgn

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
alex said:
The government should not be involved in marriage. It is a religion institution. Call it civil unions, or something to that effect, for everyone. The churches can allow or deny anyone they want for marriage then.
I'm not sure what the difference is if you call it something else. It still means the same thing. And we get the same tax advantages/incentives if we get married in a church or by a justice of the peace. So, what difference could it possibly make if they call it a civil union? Churches can 'marry' or 'civil union' who ever they want... just doesn't make it legal for tax, survivorship and property rights, which is the government end of 'marriage'.
Or do I have that wrong?
 

Lilith

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
Centrist Coast of California
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
beautymrgn said:
I'm not sure what the difference is if you call it something else. It still means the same thing. And we get the same tax advantages/incentives if we get married in a church or by a justice of the peace. So, what difference could it possibly make if they call it a civil union? Churches can 'marry' or 'civil union' who ever they want... just doesn't make it legal for tax, survivorship and property rights, which is the government end of 'marriage'.
Or do I have that wrong?
the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Justices of the Peace can marry whomever they want. The church (most of it) will not "marry" gay couples. (Some churches even insist you be of the same faith) Yet we believe for all rights and purposes, that any two consenting adults should be free to enter into contract with the other. (civil union) It's all nit picking to make everyone happy.
 

beautymrgn

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, BUT. The question was about the government being in marriage and they should call it something else. The government calls it marriage. Doesn't the church call it sanctioning the marriage, which is the religious end of it? So, the government can call it civil union but the church wouldn't sanction the civil union....what difference does it make what you call it? They both have power for different purposes regarding "unions" or marriages.
 

Lilith

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
Centrist Coast of California
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
beautymrgn said:
Yes, BUT. The question was about the government being in marriage and they should call it something else. The government calls it marriage. Doesn't the church call it sanctioning the marriage, which is the religious end of it? So, the government can call it civil union but the church wouldn't sanction the civil union....what difference does it make what you call it? They both have power for different purposes regarding "unions" or marriages.
hmmm... I have to say, I don't know. I'll look that up. My first reaction is, you've got it backwards.. but knowing you, and knowing me... I'd say I better do some more research ;)
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
beautymrgn said:
I'm not sure what the difference is if you call it something else. It still means the same thing. And we get the same tax advantages/incentives if we get married in a church or by a justice of the peace. So, what difference could it possibly make if they call it a civil union? Churches can 'marry' or 'civil union' who ever they want... just doesn't make it legal for tax, survivorship and property rights, which is the government end of 'marriage'.
Or do I have that wrong?
The government calling it a "civil union" would allow religious people who are opposed to same-sex marriage have their own word and rules for it. They could then say same-sex couples cannot get married. If the government gets away from "marriage" then same-sex couples could have equal protection under the law. Both sides get what they want, both sides could be happy.
 

beautymrgn

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
See, now this is where I get confused. Let's just say, for arguments sake that the government starts calling what is now known as marriage, civil unions. They regulate civil unions. The church marries people. So...a church marries a couple. They do not have any more rights as far as the government is concerned, now do they? Isn't that happening today? Churches of different types will sanction certain marriages that are not recognized by the goverment as legal?
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should the government but out of marriage for zoophiles too?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
YuGottaBKidding said:
Should the government but out of marriage for zoophiles too?
Hehe, oh the vernacular. Good bye.
BANNED
 
Top Bottom