Should marriage and unions be regulated by goverment?

[Deuce]

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.

What do you mean by "none of the govt's business?"

 

[Bodi]

Appenticitis compared to marriage? Marriage contracts? :doh

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

It is an an logical analogy pointing out the error in the Appeal to Tradition fallacy that was presented...

 

[Deuce]

It is an an logical analogy pointing out the error in the Appeal to Tradition fallacy that was presented...

"Traditional marriage," therefore, not being a valid argument.

 

[Lursa]

What do you mean by "none of the govt's business?"

Who lives with who.

And legitimizing that with benefits and privileges.

Yes, I am aware of the things that are 'attached' to the marriage contract.

 

[Quag]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
You think it would be good to get rid of all that?

 

[joG]

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.

I must admit, that I had been following the discussion about marriage failing outside the US. That was maybe fifteen or twenty years ago and continues in the context of the socio-economic factors driving demographic shift. I found it fascinating as I had done some ethnological an sociological stuff on family structures and their economic relevance. In any event, you are jumping much too short.

 

[Deuce]

Who lives with who.

Marriage laws don't dictate that. Lots of unmarried couples live together. Or there's roommates.

And legitimizing that with benefits and privileges.

Which benefits, specifically?

Yes, I am aware of the things that are 'attached' to the marriage contract.

Should we eliminate all of those things?

 

[Pozessed]

Why or why not?

Requiring government permission to be noticed as married seems too much like a privilege not a right. I think marriage should be a right not a privilege.

 

[notquiteright]

Requiring government permission to be noticed as married seems too much like a privilege not a right. I think marriage should be a right not a privilege.

I see the current trend as moving away from requiring gubmint permission and toward gubmint certification of the people's wishes. We are moving from may grant to shall grant. Back in my day gubmint could refuse an interracial couple a marriage certificate. Now they are granted without even an eyebrow raised.

Progress.... eace

 

[CanadaJohn]

Why or why not?

I said no because I don't believe government should be in the marriage business and I've felt that way for decades, not just recently.

However, I think the question in your poll is wrong or at least misleading. I don't have a problem with government regulating contract law - marriage, after all, from the government's perspective can be deemed a contract between two willing parties. But just like the government doesn't "license" other contracts between two willing parties, government should not be "licensing" marriage. It is an unnecessary intrusion on the personal lives of individuals.

 

[Olive]

The government should regulate secular marriages between two consenting adults, these contracts will deal with legal issues, issues around children (adopted or not), property and so forth.

No religious "authority" should have the right to force the government to limit the scope of such a marriage between consenting adults.

Likewise, the government should not have the right to define any type of marriage as done in churches or other places of worship. However these religious marriages should have no consequences in the legal world. They are only worthy the value the ceremony is given by its followers.

This way the secular and religious world can leave each other alone and nobody is imposing anything on the other.

 

[Painter]

For a marriage to mean anything is HAS to be regulated by the government.
Otherwise it is merely an bindless agreement between two people.

Just imagine how some of these things would go without Government involvement:

- Joint tax returns.
- Child custody disputes.
- Divorce settlements.
- Pre-nup agreements and their enforcement.
- Medical Insurance and fights against Insurance Companies.

I am sure there is plenty more.
Sometimes people get all riled up over an issue without ever truly thinking it through.

 

[Lursa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
You think it would be good to get rid of all that?

It doesnt go away, it can be done separately. Costs extra? Oh well. It would just create some new businesses, esp. for lawyers

And I already said I see both sides and dont really have a problem with the way it is.

But yeah...I dont care...I'd prefer the govt not be involved.

 

[Lursa]

For a marriage to mean anything is HAS to be regulated by the government.
Otherwise it is merely an bindless agreement between two people.

Just imagine how some of these things would go without Government involvement:

- Joint tax returns.
- Child custody disputes.
- Divorce settlements.
- Pre-nup agreements and their enforcement.
- Medical Insurance and fights against Insurance Companies.

I am sure there is plenty more.
Sometimes people get all riled up over an issue without ever truly thinking it through.

The same way they do now for people that live together and, in some cases, didnt get lawyers involved with paperwork to accommodate those things?

And er...there wouldnt 'be' joint tax returns or divorce settlements.

 

[Lursa]

Marriage laws don't dictate that. Lots of unmarried couples live together. Or there's roommates.


Which benefits, specifically?


Should we eliminate all of those things?

Exactly, and plenty of people still live together, have kids, buy property together, etc etc etc. They apparently dont need or wish to marry so I guess it's not a necessity.

Why would they have to be eliminated and I'm not listing them.

Dont like my opinion and extra hardship/costs for people that wish to set up certain legal funtions for themselves? Oh well.

 

[Quag]

It doesnt go away, it can be done separately. Costs extra? Oh well. It would just create some new businesses, esp. for lawyers

And I already said I see both sides and dont really have a problem with the way it is.

But yeah...I dont care...I'd prefer the govt not be involved.

Simple 1 document covers a lot, how would removing legal mairrage make anythign better?
Make a whole bunch of seperate documents that will cost peopel more and end up with problems when you are dealign with medical issues because peopel arent sure if you are allowed to make certain decisions based on confusion over the contracts?
What we have now is far easier, streamlined and accepted.
If YOU dont want to get legally married then dont get legally married and let others be.

 

[Lursa]

It is an an logical analogy pointing out the error in the Appeal to Tradition fallacy that was presented...

It didnt remotely work. Appendicitis didnt ever serve any purpose nor was it ever optional.

 

[Lursa]

Simple 1 document covers a lot, how would removing legal mairrage make anythign better?
Make a whole bunch of seperate documents that will cost peopel more and end up with problems when you are dealign with medical issues because peopel arent sure if you are allowed to make certain decisions based on confusion over the contracts?
What we have now is far easier, streamlined and accepted.
If YOU dont want to get legally married then dont get legally married and let others be.

Yeah...I dont care. People would do it or they wouldnt.

And why dont YOU read and understand what you read so that you dont write silly defensive crap like I bolded?

 

[Painter]

The same way they do now for people that live together and, in some cases, didnt get lawyers involved with paperwork to accommodate those things?

And er...there wouldnt 'be' joint tax returns or divorce settlements.

Maybe I misunderstood you.
Are you saying that you are in favor of eliminating divorce settlements?

What would you have people do? Walk 20 paces, turn and fire... winner take all?

Or maybe you are saying you want to eliminate divorce altogether?

 

[Lursa]

Maybe I misunderstood you.
Are you saying that you are in favor of eliminating divorce settlements?

What would you have people do? Walk 20 paces, turn and fire... winner take all?

Or maybe you are saying you want to eliminate divorce altogether?

If there's no marriage, there's no divorce :doh

 

[Henrin]

I was not expecting this kind of poll to be this close. :mrgreen:

 

[Quag]

Yeah...I dont care. People would do it or they wouldnt.

And why dont YOU read and understand what you read so that you dont write silly defensive crap like I bolded?

You want the govt out of marriage.
I see only loss of rights/responsablities for couples by such a proposition.
Not that it matters because it is NEVER going to happen.

 

[Bodi]

It didnt remotely work. Appendicitis didnt ever serve any purpose nor was it ever optional.

I know... you do not understand. All good.

 

[roguenuke]

If there's no marriage, there's no divorce :doh

People would still separate after having combined aspects of their lives. That won't change. And there will still be disagreements over what assets should go to whom and what part each of them played in the others life.

 

[roguenuke]

The same way they do now for people that live together and, in some cases, didnt get lawyers involved with paperwork to accommodate those things?

And er...there wouldnt 'be' joint tax returns or divorce settlements.

There would still be "divorces", even if they aren't officially named that. And joint tax returns make things easier on everyone.