NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so I've talked to a bunch of people who all agree that it would be best if the government got itself out of the whole marriage debate by simply NOT issuing marriage licenses and only issuing civil union licenses.

This thread is about the validity of government issuing any type of marriage license (excluding civil unions, obviously). And for the sake of brevity, let's not go into the whole gov't economic benefits and such of married couples.

As I have previously said, the government has overstepped its authority by issuing a marriage license. Here is where a number of conservatives and liberals have it wrong, or so I feel:

(Stereotypical) Conservatives: "Gay Marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage!"
-Well then, if marriage is so sacred to you, it obviously has religious meaning - and since the 1st Amendment stipulates separation of Church and State, why is the State doing the Church's job? (of marriage)
(Stereotypical) Liberals: "Gays should have the same rights as straight couples!"
-Well then, since everybody should have equal rights, we obviously have to create laws protecting the rights of the smaller minorities such as polygamists and the like - after so much legislating, the system just becomes bloated. And since marriage does have religious connotations in some sense, I thought liberals were for separation of Church and State.


(Sry if I stereotyped a bit here)

Married is a civil, legal staus. In holy wedlock is the religious equivalent. The only institution that can sanction marriage is the government. The church does not have this power except where the government delegates it to the church.

Marriage is a civil union. There is no other kind of marriage legaly recognised by governments in first world nations.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? The ceremony might be in a church, or it might be in a helicopter, or a registrar's office - if you get married and sign the marriage licence you have the same kind of marriage no matter how you entered it!

(Stereotypical) Liberals: "Gays should have the same rights as straight couples!"
-Well then, since everybody should have equal rights, we obviously have to create laws protecting the rights of the smaller minorities such as polygamists and the like - after so much legislating, the system just becomes bloated. And since marriage does have religious connotations in some sense, I thought liberals were for separation of Church and State.

1. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
2. Marriage is not necessarily religious.

Next.

Is there a reason why people cannot accept the simple fact that marraige is not a religious institition rather than a social instititution? Or is it just a matter or will not, due to the fact that such an acceptance undermines their pre-determined opinions?

Why is the government in this business at all?

Marriage falls within the private sphere of life and has no business in religion or the government. If two people wish to copulate and live together while caring for, loving, and protecting each other then so be it. Let them do so and let no one else have any say in why or why not they should be allowed to do so. No tax benefits, nothing.

just get rid of marrige. wild animals plants fungii any other organism i can think of does fine without it.

Marriage falls within the private sphere of life and has no business in religion or the government. If two people wish to copulate and live together while caring for, loving, and protecting each other then so be it. Let them do so and let no one else have any say in why or why not they should be allowed to do so. No tax benefits, nothing.
Private and public spheres are constructs. It isnt merely a private matter that someone beats and sexually molests their child, if we construct otherwise, and for the most part we choose to construct otherwise. We have as a species tended to do likewise with marraige. I see no reason why that should suddenly change.
just get rid of marrige. wild animals plants fungii any other organism i can think of does fine without it.
Fungii get on fine without lunges, would you?

Marriage is a civil union. There is no other kind of marriage legaly recognised by governments in first world nations.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? The ceremony might be in a church, or it might be in a helicopter, or a registrar's office - if you get married and sign the marriage licence you have the same kind of marriage no matter how you entered it!

Actually, marriage is a contract entered into by two (generally) parties. That contract can be upheld by the state, but there's really no reason a state should be issuing said contracts. The only time the state would need to become involved is in a case of a breach of the contract that could not be handled by the parties involved.

The way marriages are currently handled is merely that, the way they are currently handled. Marriages need not be performed or issued by the government. If a people collectively choose to have a state issue a standard marriage, that's fine. I just don't want people to go around thinking that marriage is by definition a government institution.

In my opinion, I think that it would be a lot better if the government just stayed out of marriage all together. If people want to get married as a religious thing, fine, let them. If the government just got rid of marriage liscensing all together, then we could just let marriage be a personal decision, and it wouldn't have an impact on anyone else. If that happened, then we wouldn't have to deal with the whole gay marriage thing anymore.

I'm married.

Our marriage did not mean the same things to me as it did my wife. For me, getting married was much more about the legal aspect - to be legally declared a couple and enjoy the respective benefits (not financial, as we're worse off being married).

For my wife it was far more about the ceremony. For both of us it was obviously about the fact that we loved each other and wanted to make a public statement about it.

Anyway...

Each religion has the right (in my opinion anyway) to peform their religious ceremonies upon the people they deem suitable candidates and deny those that do not fit (be it marriage or anything else for that matter). However, that should have absolutely no bearing on the ability for anyone of any race, creed, gender & sexuality to enter into some sort of civil union.

1. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
2. Marriage is not necessarily religious.

Next.

1. Not a sexual orientation, but well over 90% of all cultures in human history practice (or practiced for those that have been wiped out) it. The most polygamous place on Earth right now is southern Utah. The government may not recognize it, but the people there can avail themselves of most of the rights of marriage, it just takes a little extra work. Every wife (I refuse to use quotes, it's how they live and I consider legal technicalities to be less difinitive than reality) other than the legally recognized one simply need set up a POA agreement and gets listed on the husbands tax return as a roommate. In fact, if instead of filing as a "married man filing jointly" he files as "head of household with dependents" he gets a bigger deduction.

2. Marriage, like religion, is a cultural institution, and like it or not we have more than one culture in this country. The most logical conclusion is for government to restrict itself to the legal side of things and let people manage cultural and religious affairs for themselves.

Marriage as we have it now evolved by a lot of people, many well intentioned, some probably not, making decisions that seemed reasonable at the time with all the insights they had available to them. Invariably those decisions were shaped by their isolated cultural perspective because for most of our country's history there have been a lot of limits on cultural understanding. Now the only limit left is the obtusness of the individual. We live in a pluralistic society where much more perspective is available. Decisions should be made with an eye to how they affect all people concerned. Not how they affect the WASPs and let everyone else bedamned.

Private and public spheres are constructs. It isnt merely a private matter that someone beats and sexually molests their child, if we construct otherwise, and for the most part we choose to construct otherwise. We have as a species tended to do likewise with marraige. I see no reason why that should suddenly change.

Fungii get on fine without lunges, would you?
Because there is no compelling reason to construct it as such.

I wouldn't miss lunges.

Because there is no compelling reason to construct it as such.


Prove it.

Prove it.

Why don't you prove that there is indeed a compelling reason to construct it as such? Falsifying his statement should be easy enough. I'm sure you can come up with something better than asking someone to prove a negative.