Whose business is marriage?

[Panache]

Is marriage something that should require government permission and licensing? Why stop there? Why not require a government license in order to become a godparent? Or even a parent for that matter?

 

[Kandahar]

I agree that in theory it's not the government's business who someone wants to marry. However, there are a few practical considerations that make me hesitate to completely get government out of marriage entirely. Things like hospital visitation rights, prison visitation rights, inheritance, and fast-track immigration are affected by marriage, as they should be. I just don't see any feasible way for the government to ignore the institution entirely.

But consenting adults should be allowed to get married regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. This is one of the few political issues where I simply do not see any middle ground; there is NO legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

[Panache]

However, there are a few practical considerations that make me hesitate to completely get government out of marriage entirely. Things like hospital visitation rights, prison visitation rights, inheritance, and fast-track immigration are affected by marriage, as they should be. I just don't see any feasible way for the government to ignore the institution entirely.

If I am closer to my best friend than I am to anyone else in the world, should his right to visit me be lessened by the fact that we aren't sexually intimate?

Hospital visitation rights should be established through private contracts. There is no need for marriage to fill this role. I imagine that when people get married they would also sign contracts specifying those sorts of medical details, but it is the contract that the government should care about, not the marriage.

Same goes for prison visitation rights. Why should people who choose to remain unmarried be treated as anything less than those who are married? The same rules for prison and hospital visitation should apply to both.

Inheritance is established through wills, and private contracts. When people get married, they are free to included such wills and contracts as part of the event, but it is the will or the contract which the government should acknowledge, not the marriage.

As for fast-track immigration, if my best friend is from Spain, is he any less deserving to come live in America with me than he would be if we were screwing each other?

Anyone can write anyone else into their will regardless of gender or orientation. Anyone can give power of attorney to anyone else regardless of gender or oriention. These are the means through which such things should be done. There is no reason why people couldn't have standardized private contracts that include inheritance and power of attorney, and all that other wonderful stuff. People could sign these private contracts when they get married, and everything is kosher.

The thing is that all of these things are available to single people. Married people should not recieve anything that single people do not have equal access to. The marriage itself should be inconsequential to the legal ramifications of signing such contracts involving inheritance and hospital vistiation rights.

 

[Kandahar]

If I am closer to my best friend than I am to anyone else in the world, should his right to visit me be lessened by the fact that we aren't sexually intimate?

No...but if you're comatose and haven't signed anything saying who can and can't visit you, it would be good if the hospital had some kind of legal framework to work from.

Hospital visitation rights should be established through private contracts. There is no need for marriage to fill this role. I imagine that when people get married they would also sign contracts specifying those sorts of medical details, but it is the contract that the government should care about, not the marriage.

Except most people will not go to that trouble. Or the visitor will not be concerned about finding a contract before he/she rushes to the hospital in the middle of the night.

Inheritance is established through wills, and private contracts. When people get married, they are free to included such wills and contracts as part of the event, but it is the will or the contract which the government should acknowledge, not the marriage.

Yes, you can write anyone you want into your will. But if you die without writing a will, that money has to go somewhere. It makes more sense for the person you've lived with for 60 years to get it, rather than have the government take it.

As for fast-track immigration, if my best friend is from Spain, is he any less deserving to come live in America with me than he would be if we were screwing each other?

He isn't less deserving. But immigration laws tend to favor relatives of US citizens, which is understandable since US citizens want their relatives to be allowed to come here.

Anyone can write anyone else into their will regardless of gender or orientation. Anyone can give power of attorney to anyone else regardless of gender or oriention. These are the means through which such things should be done.

Yes, indeed they SHOULD be done that way. But they often aren't.

There is no reason why people couldn't have standardized private contracts that include inheritance and power of attorney, and all that other wonderful stuff. People could sign these private contracts when they get married, and everything is kosher.

But some people won't.

The thing is that all of these things are available to single people. Married people should not recieve anything that single people do not have equal access to.

I agree; I think everyone should file taxes individually and be taxed at the same rate regardless of their marital status. I think that anyone should be allowed to write anyone into their will. I think that anyone should be allowed to tell hospitals who is and isn't allowed to visit them.

But from a practical standpoint, government simply can't ignore the institution. Writing everything into legal contracts is a nice thought, but is not realistic.

 

[Gibberish]

The government shouldn't be involved with marriage but there should be a government contract that those being married would need to enter into to be recognized by the government for legal and taxes. This contract should have restrictions/requirements based on financial, immigration, and health and should have NO social restrictions.

 

[Panache]

No...but if you're comatose and haven't signed anything saying who can and can't visit you, it would be good if the hospital had some kind of legal framework to work from.

I am not saying you shouldn't have had to have signed anything. People who are married had to sign something. People who aren't married should have to sign something too. I am just saying that that something shouldn't be a marraige license, it should instead be a medical directive, or another contract that includes a medical directive.

If a medical directive is included in a standardized legal contract that you signed when you got married, that's great.

People who want to get married would hardly tell the difference. They tell their preacher that they want to get married and their preacher says "Ok, here is standard civil codependence contract for you guys. You can look through it and change or omit any of the items to customize your legal relationship, or you can just sign at the bottom."

The thing is that being a private contract rather than a state sponsored institution would automatically make it available to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Arguments regarding the "sanctity of marriage" would be removed, since the "sanctity of marriage" would be a religious/cultural matter completely separate from the government.

If standardized private codependent contracts also came standard with procedures to be followed in case the codependency were dissolved, it would alleviate a lot of trouble cause by folks who didn't get pre-nups because they didn't want their partner to think they were "planning for the marriage to fail."

Except most people will not go to that trouble. Or the visitor will not be concerned about finding a contract before he/she rushes to the hospital in the middle of the night.

It's no more trouble than getting married is. It should be as simple as printing a contract from a website, putting both peoples names in and signing at the bottom.

Yes, you can write anyone you want into your will. But if you die without writing a will, that money has to go somewhere. It makes more sense for the person you've lived with for 60 years to get it, rather than have the government take it.

A will should be accepted as standard practice to include when getting married to someone. There is no reason it should be any more complicated than marriage is currently.

He isn't less deserving. But immigration laws tend to favor relatives of US citizens, which is understandable since US citizens want their relatives to be allowed to come here.

Sure, but why shouldn't I be able to say that this guy I am friends with is like my closest family to me, just like someone else my say that this girl they are sleeping with is like their closest family to them?

Yes, indeed they SHOULD be done that way. But they often aren't.

But they would be if our government distanced itself from marriage, and acknowledged private contracts instead.

But some people won't.

They will if its the only way to have their legal relationship officially recognized. And those that wouldn't, how is that any different from people who hold marriage ceremonies on their own, without actually getting a lincense from the government?

I agree; I think everyone should file taxes individually and be taxed at the same rate regardless of their marital status. I think that anyone should be allowed to write anyone into their will. I think that anyone should be allowed to tell hospitals who is and isn't allowed to visit them.

We are in agreement there.

But from a practical standpoint, government simply can't ignore the institution. Writing everything into legal contracts is a nice thought, but is not realistic.

How is it any more complicated than getting married is now? You should seriously just be able to download a civil contract from a website, and have both people sign it. It would take less time than deciding which napkins to use at the reception.

 

[Gibberish]

I think it depends on what you mean by marriage. If you're just talking about two people living together and making the personal choice to share their lives, it's only their business. Once they want governmental recognition of the distinction between them sharing their lives and them as two individuals legally it becomes the government's business. Once they want societal acceptance of their union is becomes society's business.

Which is to say its the business of whoever is involved.

It is the business of all to the degree that it impacts them.

Governmental acknowledgment should have only legal requirements that must be met to qualify the union for taxes and legal items such kin related topics.

Society can voice their concerns and be welcoming or not but should have no say over how a couple can and cannot get married unless it infringes on individual /group rights. Society is to vacillate to write social laws based on it's flavor of the week. What society should dictate is the governmental requirements. Items that will prohibit individuals using the union for items such as financial and immigration fraud.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Voted Other. When dealing with governmental recognition, the government has every right to decide which marriages it will and will not recognize-- though it should do so with an eye toward social benefit and engagement of all adults in strong family units.

When dealing with religious institutions... the churches should do whatver the Hell they want, as it's not my business to tell other people how to worship their gods.

 

[1069]

Whose business is marriage?

The business of the same people whose business my uterus is...?

(Talk about a diplomatic answer; that one ought to satisfy both sides.)

 

[Panache]

Voted Other. When dealing with governmental recognition, the government has every right to decide which marriages it will and will not recognize-- though it should do so with an eye toward social benefit and engagement of all adults in strong family units.

Fair enough, but how does that differ from option three?

Everybody's. The government should restict it by whatever criteria the majority approve of.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Fair enough, but how does that differ from option three?

Don't give a **** what the majority thinks.

 

[Panache]

Don't give a **** what the majority thinks.

How then should the criteria for licensing be determined, if not by democratically elected officials?

the government has every right to decide which marriages it will and will not recognize-- though it should do so with an eye toward social benefit and engagement of all adults in strong family units.

When you talk about "the Government" having every right to do something in a representitive democracy/republic, you are talking about the majority having every right to do something through their elected representatives.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

How then should the criteria for licensing be determined, if not by democratically elected officials?

By whatever government is doing the licensing. I don't particularly care if judges change the rules, either. Or if some king simply declared that the law would now function differently, as long as I agreed with the changes being made.

When you talk about "the Government" having every right to do something in a representitive democracy/republic, you are talking about the majority having every right to do something through their elected representatives.

Pfeh. Even living in this representative democracy, I see how little the government's actions have to do with the will of the majority. They tell the people what to believe, long before they even bother paying lip service to those beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

Ultimately, marriage is nobody's business except the people getting married. It is, however, the governments responsibility to see that everyone is treated equally under the law and since marriage is a legal state that comes with legal consequences and benefits, the government is naturally going to be involved.

 

[RightOfCenter]

YouTube - Doug Stanhope - Marriage

 

[RedAkston]

This is IMO or course:

Marriage should only be done by the church. The states should decide on what they will recognize as a marriage, or even a "civil union" for the purposes of inheritance, taxes, visitations, etc... This is NOT a decision the US Congress should be ruling on, this is a state rights issue period. If the good people of Maryland want to recognize "civil unions" as being the equivalent of "marriage" in terms of legal issues (inheritance, etc...), then they should have every right to do so. Marriage was created by the church and it should remain with the church. If two people (gay or straight) want to join in a "civil union" because they don't want to be married in a church, then they should be allowed to. But it all boils down to what the state decides what they want to recognize - legally.

I know this is a hot-button issue with a lot of people and there is a lot of emotion wrapped up in it. I'm not opposed to "civil unions" at all, but I firmly believe that marriage should only be performed by the church. Now if a church will marry two gay people, then you have opened up another 'can of worms' in terms of a legal sense, which would need to be addressed as well. I firmly believe that marriage, as well as the education system, should not be allowed to be handled by the government - especially at the national level.

My 2 cents...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Government should be out of the marriage business, problem solved.

 

[Adrian]

This is IMO or course:

Marriage should only be done by the church. The states should decide on what they will recognize as a marriage, or even a "civil union" for the purposes of inheritance, taxes, visitations, etc... This is NOT a decision the US Congress should be ruling on, this is a state rights issue period. If the good people of Maryland want to recognize "civil unions" as being the equivalent of "marriage" in terms of legal issues (inheritance, etc...), then they should have every right to do so. Marriage was created by the church and it should remain with the church. If two people (gay or straight) want to join in a "civil union" because they don't want to be married in a church, then they should be allowed to. But it all boils down to what the state decides what they want to recognize - legally.

I know this is a hot-button issue with a lot of people and there is a lot of emotion wrapped up in it. I'm not opposed to "civil unions" at all, but I firmly believe that marriage should only be performed by the church. Now if a church will marry two gay people, then you have opened up another 'can of worms' in terms of a legal sense, which would need to be addressed as well. I firmly believe that marriage, as well as the education system, should not be allowed to be handled by the government - especially at the national level.

My 2 cents...

If the only other option is for the church to "own" marriage (which they don't), then I'd have to settle for the government handling marriages. No bullshit "civil union" for me. The full breadth of "marriage" carries so much more meaning than a puny "civil union" that the very weights of their meaning are entirely different.

 

[Cephus]

If the only other option is for the church to "own" marriage (which they don't), then I'd have to settle for the government handling marriages. No bullshit "civil union" for me. The full breadth of "marriage" carries so much more meaning than a puny "civil union" that the very weights of their meaning are entirely different.

Religion hasn't "owned" marriage for a long time, it's time for people to get over this quaint idea that religion means a ******* thing in a secular society.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Voted Other. When dealing with governmental recognition, the government has every right to decide which marriages it will and will not recognize-- though it should do so with an eye toward social benefit and engagement of all adults in strong family units.

When dealing with religious institutions... the churches should do whatver the Hell they want, as it's not my business to tell other people how to worship their gods.

I absolutely agree here. I was going to say about the same thing, but ya beat me to it.

 

[Jerry]

Is marriage something that should require government permission and licensing?

Civil marriage, being the type of marriage you speak of here, is a legal status with the state. As a matter of public policy and public record, it is the public's business.

Why stop there?
Why not require a government license in order to become a godparent? Or even a parent for that matter?

Or drive on public roads, or foster children……I know, the conspiracy is vast.