Should marriage and unions be regulated by goverment?

[MisterLogical]

Why or why not?

 

[Hatuey]

Marriage has always been regulated by governments. It has been regulated by feudal governments, theocratic governments, modern governments etc. Today, it is regulated by mostly secularized governments. That has pissed off many religious folks but c'est la vie.

 

[joG]

Marriage has always been regulated by governments. It has been regulated by feudal governments, theocratic governments, modern governments etc. Today, it is regulated by mostly secularized governments. That has pissed off many religious folks but c'est la vie.

True. But people had always died of appendicitis. But there is no need for it anymore. It most probably made sense as a societal tool in societies as it was once defined. It looks as though as now defined it no longer does.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Why or why not?

Marriage, no. Legal unions, yes -- they have to be, due to the legal contracts involved.

However, legal unions should be completely divorced from relationship status. You could be in a contract with your sibling, or your friend, or split up different legal designations between 3 people if you want.

It should not be the place of government to decide the value of people's relationships. Marriage was not a wide-spread legal institution until the mid 1800's, and the reason that changed was so the government could deny rights to black and interracial families. The entire point of it was bigotry. And it still is today.

It's not over just because people in same-sex relationships can now marry. There are a host of other family types still being left out, and serious, sometimes crippling problems with how marriage law is applied even to straight people (and now also gay people).

Even if we were to fix all of these things, it doesn't stop the sanctimonious people who happen to be in government jobs, a la Kim Davis, from stalling people's lives -- which can be extremely serious even in the short term, especially for elderly people or merged families. There is no reason a government employee needs to know the nature of your relationship in the first place. It's none of their business. All they need to know is that you have a standing legal exchange of rights with this person, whoever they might be.

The best thing to do is get rid of it entirely, and return marriage to being a social (or, if an individual wishes, religious) institution. The government's only job is to enforce the validity of your contract with your loved one, however complex or simple it may be, and whomever it may be with.

 

[Hatuey]

True. But people had always died of appendicitis. But there is no need for it anymore. It most probably made sense as a societal tool in societies as it was once defined. It looks as though as now defined it no longer does.

What a long winded to say that if the religious don't get to control marriage then it shouldn't exist. It's not happening, joG. Marriage is not going away. It's certainly not going away now.

 

[joG]

What a long winded to say that if the religious don't get to control marriage then it shouldn't exist. It's not happening, joG. Marriage is not going away. It's certainly not going away now.

Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.

 

[HonestJoe]

If marriage (or any other form of union) is to be recognised in law, government must regulate that aspect of it. Marriage is relevant to things like inheritance, parental status and court testimony so there has to be a formal legal definition and observation of that concept. That will inevitably involve some related regulation and legislation.

That doesn't mean individuals are prevented from having relationships they consider marriage, be they defined personally, religiously or socially. It's just that they won't encompass any of the legal rights or responsibilities unless they also follow the formal legal process.

 

[tres borrachos]

Why or why not?

Define "regulated".

Legal unions are a contractual issue. Regulated by government means government controls or directs. Marriage should merely be a legal matter between consenting adults, a piece of paper that gives legal protection to the other party. Government should not be controlling nor directing marriage.

 

[roguenuke]

Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.

No one knowledgeable is claiming "marriage is expensive".

Please show us where this discussion is seriously taking place, including who is involved, so we can judge the validity of this claim.

 

[longview]

In my own opinion, secular governments have no business in the morality department.
Marriage as defined by religious institutions is really a morality contract.
Beyond morality, Government does have an interest in having stable taxpayer units (Families).
Such legal unions could be regulated to encourage stability for the future taxpayers.

 

[roguenuke]

In my own opinion, secular governments have no business in the morality department.
Marriage as defined by religious institutions is really a morality contract.
Beyond morality, Government does have an interest in having stable taxpayer units (Families).
Such legal unions could be regulated to encourage stability for the future taxpayers.

Religious marriage has nothing to do with legal/civil marriage. They are separated, just as most personal aspects of marriage are separated from the legal aspects.

 

[Hatuey]

Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. This discussion about marriage failing as a societal tool is extremely recent. Specifically, it began at the same time it became obvious that gays were getting closer and closer to having their unions recognized by the state. Suddenly marriage became the domain of churches and churches alone for millions of religious who had had no issue with government regulating it before. It's not going to happen though. The state has an interest in regulating marriage, it's not going to give it up and it definitely shouldn't.

 

[Ray410]

There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.

 

[roguenuke]

There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.

What aspect of marriage is religious in nature that government has "invaded", forcing religious people to comply with? Note, this needs to be an actual religious aspect not "well they use the term marriage".

 

[notquiteright]

There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.

Ummmm no.

Religion is attempting to regulate who can get married in the SECULAR world. The Kentucky clerk has stopped the SECULAR world from recognizing SSM while claiming her religious rights are being infringed if she signs a SECULAR document. NO ONE is forcing a religious order to perform SSM. A few quasi religious individuals are running a foul but no one says a Catholic Priest must perform a SSM.

Justa strawman, and a rather poor one at that.... eace

 

[LaylaWindu]

Why or why not?

Yes

If it wasn't legally it would be meaningless. If the legal part doesn't appeal to people spiritual marriage is already available to all.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Religious marriage has nothing to do with legal/civil marriage. They are separated, just as most personal aspects of marriage are separated from the legal aspects.

This is something a minority group of people in american seem to not be able to understand. They think they are the same for some reason and they are not.

 

[LaylaWindu]

There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.

The religious aspects don't matter because they are free to be done by anybody who wants them. There is no invasion of government in to religious marriage at all. I can get religiously married right now, government has no say or control over that.

 

[Deuce]

In my own opinion, secular governments have no business in the morality department.
Marriage as defined by religious institutions is really a morality contract.
Beyond morality, Government does have an interest in having stable taxpayer units (Families).
Such legal unions could be regulated to encourage stability for the future taxpayers.

They are. They call it a marriage contract.

 

[Deuce]

There are both religious and legal aspects to marriage. The legal aspects require government involvement, such as property rights, community debts, contract formation, etc. The present furor exists because government has now invaded the religious aspects of the institution, which have been the traditional purview of religion.

No, the government has not invaded the religious aspects of the institution.

 

[Lursa]

Marriage has always been regulated by governments. It has been regulated by feudal governments, theocratic governments, modern governments etc. Today, it is regulated by mostly secularized governments. That has pissed off many religious folks but c'est la vie.

True. But people had always died of appendicitis. But there is no need for it anymore. It most probably made sense as a societal tool in societies as it was once defined. It looks as though as now defined it no longer does.

Appenticitis compared to marriage? Marriage contracts? :doh

LOL when did appendicitis ever 'make sense' as anything at all? And when was it ever regulated?

 

[Lursa]

Well no. You are jumping to conclusions. There has been a low level discussion about marriage as a societal tool is failing for some time. As it is rather expensive the discussion goes, it would be better to use the money in better ways. I didn't realize you don't follow these things.

Can you please explain how marriage is "expensive" for the govt, specifically? Esp. balancing it out as a whole against its benefits?

 

[Lursa]

If marriage (or any other form of union) is to be recognised in law, government must regulate that aspect of it. Marriage is relevant to things like inheritance, parental status and court testimony so there has to be a formal legal definition and observation of that concept. That will inevitably involve some related regulation and legislation.

That doesn't mean individuals are prevented from having relationships they consider marriage, be they defined personally, religiously or socially. It's just that they won't encompass any of the legal rights or responsibilities unless they also follow the formal legal process.

I agree and have often mentioned this when people objected to SSM on religious grounds. If those people dont like how the govt 'recognizes' marriages legally, they dont have to participate at all in that contract. They are welcome to complete their union in their own church or establishment as they see fit, without the 'govt taint.'

 

[Quag]

Silly question as govt is NEVER going to get out of mairrage.
The anti-SSM crowd will just have to acceept the fact.

 

[Lursa]

Silly question as govt is NEVER going to get out of mairrage.
The anti-SSM crowd will just have to acceept the fact.

I'm pro SSM but I also believe that marriage is none of the govt's business.

With that said, I also dont believe it will ever reduce its involvement so I dont really bother tilting at that particular windmill. I see both sides of the issue, I'd just prefer the govt never got involved in the first place.