Should the state be involved in marriages?

[otseng]

Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?

What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?

[mrmufin]

Should the government be involved in the marriage business? No, but they are invovled in the civil union business, a legal binding of two consenting adults into one (as recognized by law). What is the difference here?

The government is involved in the "marriage business" by affording specific state and federal benefits to those who are parties to a marriage contract. If the government benefits associated with a civil union were identical to those associated with marriage, the only difference would be semantic, but that's not the case.

Marriage in its most ideal definition is a civil union sanctified and recognized by God.

Perhaps according to you, but not according to the States. Let's not confuse the States' interest in marriage with the traditional and ceremonial components.

What I think I am reading is that anyone should be able to claim thier couplehood and recieve the same recognition as those in a civil union, or that no one should recieve recognition or benefit for being 'two as one'. Is that truly the issue being discussed?

Well, maybe kinda sorta... I don't think this is as much about claiming couplehood and receiving recognition or benefits, as much as the fact that there are state sanctioned benefits and consequences associated with being a party to a marriage contract. As well, many states attempt to preclude certain persons from being a party to a marriage contract (and consequently, preclude those persons from being recipients of said benefits) by virtue of their gender. This is gender-based discrimination.

One way to eliminate this discrimination is by removing all government benefits associated with being a party to a marriage contract. Another way to eliminate this discrimination is by not precluding persons to enter into a marriage contract based on gender. I have absolutely no problem whatever with religious institutions and their adherents defining marriage as they see most appropriate, but I do have a problem when States allow some folks to reap benefits of marriage while preventing others from doing the same as a matter of gender.

Regards,
mrmufin

[McCulloch]

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it is against the anti-discrimination sections of our Bill of Rights to prohibit same-sex marriages. Gays are now getting married in most provinces in Canada. There is a bill in front of Parliament (Canada's legislative branch of government) to change the laws regarding marriage to make them consistent with the Bill of Rights and recognizing same-sex marriage.
As could be predicted, there is loud debate from polarized extremes. On one side, strict religionists of many stripes are loudly declaring that marriage can only be the union between one man and one woman. They are declaring without logic that the recognition of same-sex marriage will some how cheapen their own heterosexual marriages and lead our society over some moral abyss.
On the other hand, some religions and other friends of freedom have applauded this long overdue recognition.

Should I tremble in fear of God's judgement on my country?

[AlAyeti]

Redefining marriage proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is "An Agenda" at work.

"Christians" (the most vocal of the "worried") that have been concerned for so long that they will be subjected to oppression at the hands of Progressive Liberals, have their position grounded firmly on fact.

After marriage is unjustifiably redefined, then the destruction of "Family" and the inevitible move towards sexualizing children in pre-school will logically follow. Of course it already has in countries with progressive laws.

In Canada, 14-yeard old children are recognized as willing sex partners of anyone else. With of course older people benefitting the most from the Law.

Pedophilia and Pederasty is a real concern for any caring parent. But when marriage is destroyed and redefined to include any defintion that any "individual" wants to choose to believe it means, then society and cultures and countries, cease to exist and the narcissistic mandates of ones own conscience or lack thereof, becomes Law.

Society and culture ends with the redefinition of marriage. A definition that has stood since recorded history began.

[Dilettante]

Society and culture ends with the redefinition of marriage. A definition that has stood since recorded history began.

Actually, marriage has been redefined in some way or other several times in history. It began as an arrangement related to the notion of property, and in the 11th century was redefined as a union based on love rather than convenience. Different kinds of marriages existed in ancient Rome, and polygamous marriages have been normal in some cultures. Even in the US, polygamy was practiced by Mormons until 1890, when they redefined Mormon marriage to conform with the US predominant culture.

Apparently, in today's society the main purpose of marriage is no longer procreation but companionship, as the marriage of Francois Fernandez (aged 96 at the time) and Madeleine Francineau (aged 94 at the time) in France on February 1, 2002, illustrates. In a different age they would not have been allowed to marry since their union is obviously not going to produce any children. Because of this shift of focus gays and lesbians have been able to promote legislation of homosexual marriage in many countries (Denmark was the first, in 1989). It is certainly a bold innovation, and I admit I don't know what the effects in the long run will be, so unless experts have a clear opinion I'll have to give it the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps a study of the effects on Danish society would cast some light.

[bigmrpig]

After marriage is unjustifiably redefined, then the destruction of "Family" and the inevitible move towards sexualizing children in pre-school will logically follow.

I don't understand how allowing same-sex marriage will cause preschoolers to be sexualized...

But when marriage is destroyed and redefined to include any defintion that any "individual" wants to choose to believe it means, then society and cultures and countries, cease to exist and the narcissistic mandates of ones own conscience or lack thereof, becomes Law.

It's not being destroyed. Nothing about it would be reduced at all to allow gay marriage. It would expand to fit the changing lifestyles of modern man. And it's not changing it to what any "individual" wants to choose to believe it means, it's allowing homosexuals to marry each other. It's not allowing a four year old to marry a grown adult, it's not allowing polygamy, and it's not hurting anyone.

[Jose]

The critical thing here is whether the "marriage" is harmful, and to whom. In polygamist families (read Under the Banner of Heaven), young girls are given to multiply-married men without their consent. They believe this is what god wants for them because they have been raised that way since birth. I find this abhorrent, since many of them are too young, and essentially coerced into this type of bondage.

But for gay adults, in a pairwise relationship, what's the big deal? The one person I knew in my first 20 years, who actually went to church (no one else did), is the one person who turned out to be gay. (I presume there's no causal relationship here.) Once he realized it, he finally found a stable relationship. This was decades ago; he's still in the same stable relationship. He's a good guy. So's his partner. If they were to "marry," it wouldn't hurt anyone--least of all Christians who are happily married and live elsewhere. It would have absolutely no effect on children elsewhere.

These guys are simply acknowledging the Biological Fact that the way their brains developed in utero, perhaps under god's direction and grand plan, resulted in their having female (or partially female) wiring in an ostensibly-male body. Who are we to define "male" and "female" on the basis of the external plumbing? Why don't we define it on the basis of a person's brain?

Sure, 2000 years ago, when they thought that the heart was the seat of reason and not just a pump, they didn't know about male or female brain wiring. They may be forgiven for thinking the external plumbing was the important stuff, because that's all they knew about. Let's not continue this mistake into the 21st century, when we do know enough. "Beauty is more than skin-deep;" so is gender. Look beyond the external appearance to the real person.

[Amphigorey]

Thanks to the always logical and lucid ST88 for pointing out that there is as much if not more benefit to the State in issuing marriage contracts as there is for the individuals involved.

One drawback to letting States define marriages in the US is that the definition of your US marriage can change if you cross state lines. I am not refering to who or which genders can have a marriage contract, but to property rights, divorce proceedures and settlements, custody laws, etc.

And, in as much as marriage contracts also determine taxation, I have always been baffeled that the US does not give the marriage contract (as tax entity) the same leniency and preference that it gives, say, articles of incorporation. That is, we allow corporations - regardless of their place of business - to declare that they are incorporated under the very favorable laws of State XYZ for little more than a minimal annual registration fee and the cost of a Post Office box. Why then do we not allow married couples to declare that they are married under the laws of which ever State they were originally married in (or the State of their choice!) for the sake of consistency and simplicity?

[Cephus]

I think the question here is should religion be involved in marriages.

Marriage is a civil union. You can get married without a religious ceremony easily, all you have to do is go get a marriage license and you're married. However, you can walk down all the aisles you want and have all the ministers and ceremonies you want, you're not married until you've got that state-issued piece of paper in your hand.

I'm all for eliminating religion's place in marriage. If you want to have a ceremony in a church, by all means knock yourself out, but that's just for show, the real marriage, the one that is legally binding, happens at the courthouse when you fork over your money and they hand you the license.

[Dilettante]

Cephus, I fail to see the force of your argument. Marriage predates both the State and the church. In my country, a Catholic wedding has civil effects as well (but not other religions' ceremonies) and is just as legally binding. You are arguing from a specific case, a contingency, but the situation could have been different. Perhaps you should give reasons why you think marriage should be simply a civil union and nothing else.

[Cephus]

Cephus, I fail to see the force of your argument. Marriage predates both the State and the church. In my country, a Catholic wedding has civil effects as well (but not other religions' ceremonies) and is just as legally binding. You are arguing from a specific case, a contingency, but the situation could have been different. Perhaps you should give reasons why you think marriage should be simply a civil union and nothing else.

The concept of marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity, so there's no reason to think that they have any control over it, even from historical evaluation. However, we're talking about the modern world, and in the US at least, religious marriage is legally meaningless. You can get married 50 times in any church you want, it doesn't make you married until you get that piece of paper from the state. YMMV elsewhere, of course.

The only reason for a marriage is property and inheritance rights, honestly. It determines ownership, lines of succession, bloodlines, etc. All of these are purely civil in nature. If you wish to *ALSO* have a religious wedding, more power to you, but what does that do for you?