If marriage is a "fundamental" right, how should government regulate it?

[celticlord]

Assume for the moment that marriage is a fundamental right every bit on a par with the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.

What regulations should government apply to marriage?

Should government apply any regulation to marriage?

Is there any foundation in existing law for your answer, and, if so, what is it?

 

[Arch Enemy]

The institution of marriage should open itself for public investors.

then the Government should buy 60% of it. Kick it's CEO and make it seem like the Gov't will be the fly on the wall.

Personally, I'd fear for Marriage's competitor "Single" and "Mentally Stable".

 

[Inferno]

Assume for the moment that marriage is a fundamental right every bit on a par with the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.

What regulations should government apply to marriage?

Should government apply any regulation to marriage?

Is there any foundation in existing law for your answer, and, if so, what is it?

Why should it be regulated. It should just be. It is more a legal arrangement than anything else. I give half my life to you. You give half of of your life to me. Here is the contract sign. That is it. There should be no tax breaks. Why should you get benefits from taxes for being married. Government should have no part in it. The institution should be abolished as of yesterday.

 

[celticlord]

Why should it be regulated. It should just be. It is more a legal arrangement than anything else. I give half my life to you. You give half of of your life to me. Here is the contract sign. That is it. There should be no tax breaks. Why should you get benefits from taxes for being married. Government should have no part in it. The institution should be abolished as of yesterday.

Philosophically, I tend to agree.

What support for the position is there as a matter of law?

 

[winston53660]

Philosophically, I tend to agree.

What support for the position is there as a matter of law?

Well I do think spouses gay or straight should inherint the home both lived in and contributed to tax free.

 

[celticlord]

Well I do think spouses gay or straight should inherint the home both lived in and contributed to tax free.

Same question to you:

What support for the position is there as a matter of law?

 

[winston53660]

Same question to you:

What support for the position is there as a matter of law?

I'm not sure what you mean. I know my parents can inherit the family home should either one die tax free.

 

[stevenb]

Why should the government regulate a religious institution?

Last time I checked, our government isn't allowed to do such things.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Marriage isn't a religious institution. Or a civil institution, for as much as Church and State have both attempted to sink their meathooks into it. It's a social institution that the Church and the State are both within their prerogatives to choose to recognize or not recognize as they see fit.

It is for the best that they do. Certain forms of marriage are better for society than others, and the Church is right to encourage those forms as a matter of moral policy, and the State is right to give those forms special considerations.

 

[hazlnut]

Same question to you:

What support for the position is there as a matter of law?

14th Amendment.

 

[winston53660]

. Certain forms of marriage are better for society than others,

And what forms would those be? Also do those forms come in triplicate?

 

[rathi]

The government should offer a package of legal benefits for 2 people who want to make some commitment to form a household. The full package would be what we call marriage, but more limited selections should be available as well. There are plenty of people who would rather have their friends be the ones who visit them in the hospital over their family.
Legal issues are the domain of the government and should be dealt with, social issues are not and should be avoided whenever possible.

However, if the government does decide it can define what "marriage" is, it has to do so equally. Marriage for all or marriage for none!

 

[celticlord]

14th Amendment.

Not germane to the question. All the 14th Amendment mandates is that the law be applied equally. It is mute on the matter of what the law should be.

 

[celticlord]

And what forms would those be? Also do those forms come in triplicate?

Marriage in triplicate?

Hmmm....sounds kinky....I like it!

 

[hazlnut]

Not germane to the question. All the 14th Amendment mandates is that the law be applied equally. It is mute on the matter of what the law should be.

Survey Says? BUZZ -- Oh, I'm sorry, you don't know what you're talking about... But we have nice conciliation prize for you...

18,000 gay couples are leagally married in California.

Why can't the two same-sex couples in the federal case get married?

The state Constitution was amended.

How are they getting equal protection under the law?

 

[celticlord]

18,000 gay couples are leagally married in California.

Why can't the two same-sex couples in the federal case get married?

The state Constitution was amended.

How are they getting equal protection under the law?

How many of those 18,000 marriages were invalidated by operation of law?

None, therefore they have no equal protection claim to make.

 

[Goobieman]

Assume for the moment that marriage is a fundamental right every bit on a par with the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.

What regulations should government apply to marriage?

We all know that marriage is a union of two people that combines their assets, liabilitiies, benefits and responsibilities.

The state creates laws that specify how said items interact within the marriage, with the world outsude the marriage, and when the marriage ends (however that manifests itself).

This 'regulation' is necessary because the parties, both within and outside the marriage, have rights; the laws created for that regulation are there to protect those rights.

Imagine, should you be married and want a divorce, with no law to that effect.

That said, marriage is a prvilege extended to people by the state, as it does not exist outside the laws of the state -- if the stat ehas to pass a lw for it to exist, it cannot be a right.

 

[Baralis]

We need a marriage Czar! :doh

I dont think the governemt should regulate it period. No licence, fees, tax breaks period (one flat tax for everyone). I dont feel personal relationships are the governments buisness in any way shape or form. If Joe wants to marry three men and six women only those involved should be concerned.

 

[celticlord]

We need a marriage Czar!

Wouldn't that be the wife?

 

[Inferno]

Philosophically, I tend to agree.

What support for the position is there as a matter of law?

There is not really reference to marital rights in the constitution. It is just a game that the government got involved in as a way to push marriage and children. That is why the tax breaks. Who would marry otherwise was the thinking.

 

[rivrrat]

It's not a "fundamental right" and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

 

[Mercer]

Assume for the moment that marriage is a fundamental right every bit on a par with the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.

What regulations should government apply to marriage?

Should government apply any regulation to marriage?

Is there any foundation in existing law for your answer, and, if so, what is it?

Well, there are laws which prohibit child sex. And incest laws which prohibit marrying close relatives. There's also laws against animal sex. So, I guess the point would be to let adult humans marry.

 

[Mercer]

It's not a "fundamental right" and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

Well, it's the "legal" tie between two people. Most of those married or wanting to be married pay taxes. The state issues licenses declaring the union legal and recognized by the state as being able to share in state laws of marriage contracts.

I think the right to marriage is as fundamental as the government's right to tax.

 

[celticlord]

It's not a "fundamental right" and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

If it is not a fundamental right, then doesn't that require government involvement?

 

[celticlord]

Well, there are laws which prohibit child sex. And incest laws which prohibit marrying close relatives. There's also laws against animal sex. So, I guess the point would be to let adult humans marry.

Is your thesis of marriage a strictly sexual union?