Should the government have anything to do with marriage?

[RingOfFire]

There is all this debate about who should be allowed to marry and who shouldn't.

I personally find the concept of "same sex marriages" unattractive, but I also think people should be able to decide for themselves and would never want to force them to adhere to my view of this. You only live once and have a right to your own choices just as I have a right to mine without your interference.

So I don't think that the government should allow, not allow, recognize or have anything at all to do with ANY marriage. It's none of their business. Every person should be treated as an individual in the eyes of the government.

Leave the "marriage" thing to the religious organizations and/or to the people involved. If they want to call themselves "married" it's no one's business but theirs. Get the government and the "licenses" out of it. Let people call their relationship anything they want to call it. That's their natural born right and none of the government's business.

[AviatorTom]

Since government gives benefits to those who are married (ex: lower taxes), government should be involved in determining requirements to get married. That should also include, for example, age requirements, making sure that each individual is old enough to make such an important decision.

And don't forget that the issuance of marriage certificates makes money for the government, as the people to be married pay fees to get married.

[RingOfFire]

What you are saying is that because you get certain benefits for being married, the government should be involved in the marriage. But that's the cart leading the horse.

What I am saying is that people should not be getting any special benefits for being married and all individuals should be treated as individuals. By giving more tax benefits to people who are married you are forcing individuals who are not married to carry a bigger share of the tax burden. That is a violation of their rights.

"And don't forget that the issuance of marriage certificates makes money for the government"

Oh I haven't forgotten. That's another reason to get the government out of it.

[mysteriousNicholas]

@AviatorTom and that brings me tom to my also shared belief and answer in simplicity that: 👀 the government, is the government. 🖤 After all the Men in Black seem like such fine men in suits and ties - I saw no UFO, and I for one welcome the ants 🐜 lol Simpsons quote. Anyways genuinely I for one do respect and uphold that "government is the government" and aren't wrong 💖

[Jersey2]

Married people produce children which the government needs to continue running so they should get a tax break. Unmarried with children get a tax break as well but they also insure government costs for food stamps more often along with kids that have more problems that lead to jail.

[AMS700CX4u2]

Tom , I think you are right on the mark.

[foxsquirrell]

Well the government does not have to give benefits to married people if he is not involved in it.

[MannMitAntworten]

Ordinarily I agree with Tom. Your opening statement got me, “…government gives benefits to those who are married (ex: lower taxes)….” So on and so forth. We both know ‘government’ doesn’t give anyone anything. It takes from its citizenry and spends it as it wills. This benefit of reduced taxes (income taxes) you mention … well, altruism by gunpoint is not a benefit. The Revenue Act of 1913 along with property taxes all need to get shoved back up the ass of the 10 trillion ton gorilla we affectionally call, “Government” where it belongs.

[MannMitAntworten]

Ordinarily I agree with you* Tom - that should have read.

[Hardon-Collider]

You're right that the state shouldn't be involved, but not for the reason you think. The state only has authority over the sphere of rights and equality. Marriage, however, is a spiritual reality. It's not about rights; it's about the union of individuals and the continuation of the race. It belongs to the cultural-spiritual sphere of life, where it must be free. The state cannot, by its very nature, have anything to say about it. Its reality is separate and independent of the government.

[RingOfFire]

You are entitled to have your own reasoning and opinion about the basis of marriage and why it should not be in the purview of the government. Whatever you think the reasoning is, it is not the government's business.

[Hardon-Collider]

I'm saying that governments cannot regulate the inner reality of what marriage actually is.

[RingOfFire]

I'm fine with that but I think that marriage is different things to different people. I don't think it has a single reality. It's a belief not a fixed reality.

[Leodeh]

Yes, but the state should be much more homogenous and localized than I the USA today. That being said it should be religious and community first. The state is just there to ensure conformity to certain standards.

[HawkPerception]

I'm not religious, but I personally believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and anything else is an abomination. But I also believe in not dictating others lives. So as long as they're not causing harm upon others, they can do whatever the heck they want.

[RingOfFire]

I agree with every part of that and feel exactly the same about the topic.

[ohsheeT]

Well they do and it's all about to come to an end

[mysteriousNicholas]

I don't mind the government having a lot of power over my life and I'm referring to my government in my country. Now if you're referring to government generally or only specifically your government in your country or state, asker, then I don't know what to think, other than "I don't mind the government in my country/my city, I like government"

That's why I voted for them 😎

👑

[mysteriousNicholas]

Whenever I hear government sometimes, I think of Family Guy and the brief scene with Chris and ET hiding in the closest "run ET run" and you see ET just drawn like a poor man's alien from American Dad running on screen out the room of the Griffin household lol 😂😆

[mysteriousNicholas]

You gotta love Seth MacFarlane cartoons

[RingOfFire]

Government is a necessary evil to maintain civil order. But here in America our federal government was founded on the principle of a very specific limited mandate and authority. It was not to be permitted to operate outside of those limited powers.

The people are supposed to be the center of the power structure not the government. When the government loses focus of its mission to serve the people and instead thinks that the people exist to serve the government, it has violated its mandate.

[mysteriousNicholas]

@RingOfFire Yeah I wouldn't be able to add much more than "I'm just only familiar more with my country's system" -

[DaddyDiablo]

No the government should definitely not have any involvement in any marriage whatsoever even if it has to do with anyone that's in the LGBT community and I'm not gonna say anymore on this just cause we've definitely gone and come far from where we once were in and as far as marriage goes... unless it's definitely for the sole purpose of divorce or anything to do with such sorts of problems like restraining orders, alimony or whatever the case then may be but only then.

[RingOfFire]

Sensible answer.

[HighValue]

If you think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, then you must also agree that there should be no such thing as alimony or the woman getting to legally steal what the man earned too right?

[RingOfFire]

No. That is a civil matter. I am not suggesting that someone cannot file a civil grievance and seek damages if they feel they were damaged. That applies whether they are married or not. Marriage is not relevant to that process.

[RavVid]

Absolutely. Get the gov't out of the bedroom and de-establish divorce courts. The later is the most important.

Society is fairly much voting with their feet any way and not marrying. For those that do the median length is 8 years and till death do us part escapes at least 70% of couples, so it is a mockery in reality.

Since having children is optional for women, it is probably better to replace as contracts agreeing to have children if a couple feels a need.

[MannMitAntworten]

Government is the silent third partner there to cost you money to ‘allow’ couples to marry and there to cost heaps of money should the couple decide to dissolve their marriage. It is also there for taxes and other fees along the marriage itself. Do I think government should be involved in marriage? HELL NO!!! As least where living in the West is concerned, Living and even dying is an effing government racket.

[AneeMoi]

I personally find the concept of, you, having a concept, of ‘same sex’ marriages unattractive, …unattractive. And the oblivious, typical boomer way that you casually drop that subjective detail, without even thinking how that comes across, is distracting, and gross.

Plus, the question was about government having anything to do with marriage. Not same sex marriage.

That aside, I kinda agree with you. If they, like you said, treat everyone as an EQUAL individuals, then sure. And figure out how to redistribute, or do away with all the gov benefits that currently come with marriage?

[RingOfFire]

"And the oblivious, typical boomer way that you casually drop that subjective detail, without even thinking how that comes across, is distracting, and gross."

Oh I know exactly how it comes across. It comes across as free speech that triggers people like you who have to resort to personal insults (or worse) to try to intimidate and silence any views you deem unacceptable and warp American into a constitutionaless dictatorship where a few intolerant people get to dictate what everyone else can say and do.

It's gross? Too damn bad for you.

I may be a boomer, but not on my watch.

[foxsquirrell]

What if people want to be recognized as a married couple in a civil way? Don't get me wrong, I myself do not want to get married because I think it is completely unnecessary when you can just live together.

[RingOfFire]

Lots of people want the government to do lots of things. But that doesn't mean it should do it. Government has certain things that it can do centrally that are necessary evils. The most important of them is to protect the country from foreign invasion and to protect the safety of the citizens. Beyond that, there is a very limited list of powers the government should have. And getting involved in personal relationships between individuals is not one of them. It is not their business and not something anyone but the people involved should have any say in.

[foxsquirrell]

But that is simply your opinion of what governments should and should not do. I am not interested in marrying myself, but if a couple wants to be recognized as a couple in a formal contract it is also up to them. So what are you saying? Two people marry they make a contract between themselves but the system still recognizes them as two separate individuals who just happen to live together. I think they can do that why not. Is it the case in your country that a couple cannot do that?

[RingOfFire]

"Two people marry they make a contract between themselves but the system still recognizes them as two separate individuals who just happen to live together."

That is exactly what I am saying. Yes, of course they can do that. What I am saying is that the government should NEVER be involved in such relationships. It should be completely neutral towards it and stay out of it.

Of course it's my opinion. What else are you suggesting it could be? I have my opinion and you have yours.

[foxsquirrell]

I really don't know what are the details about civil marriage. I am wondering what you will write in the contract between you and your girlfriend. So the benefit in that case would be that it would not fall under state law. But she can still take you to court then if you break the contract in some way. I don't know I think you can do it, but I think in that case you might as well do nothing and just live No no I told you that it is merely your opinion just so that we are clear, because you replied with a certain tone suggesting that you know what is right or wrong when the government is involved. What the government should and should not do. Yes you're right you are absolutely right people say a lot of things and it does not mean that the government should listen to them.
So if I understood you correctly when I asked you about people who want a legally recognized marriage despite all that you're saying your answer is that these people should not have it because it is not the government's business to get into personal matters.
Listen just don't marry at all like I am saying in that case, and no government will bother you with that. Simple.

[RingOfFire]

It depends on what you mean by "legally recognized." You can create a contract with someone to handle things like who gets what property if certain things do or do not happen and such a contract can be legally enforced in a court. That doesn't mean that the "marriage" is recognized. People can make contracts with each other whether they are married or not. I am not suggesting that should be eliminated.

What should be eliminated is the recognition of special privileges given by the government for people they "recognize" as "married" such as preferential tax treatment. Also things like automatic assumptions about what happens to property after a "divorce" happens from dividing up assets to "alimony" should be eliminated. If one person wants to sue another after they were "married" in a private arrangement through their religious facility or some other private method I am not opposed to that. I'm fine with them making their cases in court. Yes, court is government, but that is not a recognition of marriage, it's simply settling a civil dispute just like anyone, "married" or not can do.

[foxsquirrell]

I am surely in favor of the government NOT recognizing married couples as better or special in some way just because they are married. I agree with you on that. Also the automatic assuption of who gets what after a divorce is also something I think is unfair. So agree there too. Yes I know that two adults can make a contract between themselves and a contract is covered by the law of contracts of course. But as I said if you want to marry non officially so that you are not subject to the law of the state you might as well just live together period without any contracts. It sounds a little empty to make a marriage contact between yourselves which is not recognized by the law as a marriage contract per se, but perhaps as a contact between two people. I don't know, it's obviously up to the individual. I dont think marrying is a good idea especially for a man. Dice are loaded against you. ESPECIALLY if the woman brings the children into the equation, which she will if you have children with her because it will be a walk over. Children are prioritized, they are held by society on some kind of pedestal, and it is expected of you to sacrifice for them. Now to work for your own kids is o. k, perhaps even natural, but in a context where she is deciding when and where you see them and for how long and stuff like this, its no good at all. It will feel humiliating, defeating, and you will be basically fucked.
Although even if you are not married civilly you still have to be responsible for your children and pay maintenance. I don't know perhaps it is even worse if you're married though.
As I said, I would like to repeat again, just don't marry, so that the government or the courts can't touch you. At least they can't touch you as much let us put it that way.

[foxsquirrell]

I leave you with some good news. I've seen on social media somewhere that China has changed the law of the man having to loose half of his assets in case of divorce. And my hat goes off for CHINA. Well done CHINA!!! At long last someone has seen how unfair it was and how ruthless women abuse it to their advantage.

[RingOfFire]

I can't share your enthusiasm for a decision by the Chinese government which I have absolutely no respect for. Any decisions they make that seem good on the surface are more likely designed to take freedom away not enhance it.

[foxsquirrell]

I am surprised! I thought you would welcome this little bit of news. You must be very anti Chinese I am thinking lol. I do not think oppression is good. I don't like it if for example governments spy on you all the time. However keep an open mind, because oppression might come in very unexpected forms. It might come under the guise of capitalism as well! I say this because if you need to work two jobs a day to make ends meet because the system is so geared in favor of the rich capitalists that you are left with nothing but bread crumbs, where is the freedom? Like seriously.

[RingOfFire]

I have a cousin who married a Chinese woman. They are both physicians. She has the most horrible tales about the government there when she was a child and is so glad to have escaped communism and come to America -- the leader of capitalist freedom in the world. There is no economic system in the history of human existence that has created more freedom and prosperity for more people than capitalism. It is the anthesis of communism, the governmental system from hell.

[foxsquirrell]

Yeah when communism is not properly applied it can result in many abuses. But so does pure capitalism. The shear discrepancy in wealth is testament to this. I think a system somewhere in between capitalism and communism is the best.

[RingOfFire]

I think unicorns are the best, but they don't exist.

In the real world there is no such thing as a communism that is "properly applied." In every example of a communist government in history it resulted in severe oppression of human rights and widespread poverty.

Disparity of wealth is not a violation of human rights. It is one of many things that makes a capitalist society superior to any other as it rewards and incentivizes hard work, education, independence, innovation, productivity and invention. It provides a ladder for people to climb out of poverty to improve their lives instead of rewarding sloth and lack of incentive by receiving handouts and welfare that force people to be dependent on others and at their mercy and inevitably leads to government oppression.

Those who believe communism is superior to capitalism must think that poor immigrants are stupid because there are more poor immigrants trying to get into the United States, the headquarters of capitalist economics, both legally and illegally, than into all the other countries of the world combined. Capitalist America is where immigrants come to lift themselves out of poverty and improve their lives, not communist China, Russia or any other communist country.

[RingOfFire]

Just because a governmental economic system may not be perfect in practice that does not preclude it from being the best. I think you can put it this way.

In practice, Capitalism is the worst system of economics and government on the planet: except for all the others.

[foxsquirrell]

You are stating facts which are untrue. You are interpreting facts as you please. There is a lot which can be argued against the litany of false statements that you have just made. But if you are one American capitalist like you very clearly are who thinks that America is the best it will be a waste of time. So enjoy your view, and that would be all.

[RingOfFire]

To figure out the truth all you have to do is see which countries people are fleeing and which countries they are desperately trying to get into. So no, it is not untrue. Believe as you wish.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

God banned Same Sex Marriage a long time ago. It's not a matter of what you "feel". Your feelings are misleading.

[RingOfFire]

You have a right to that belief and to be married in the religion of your choice. The government is not needed in the process.

[Ariesman81]

The problem of asset/liability reallocation following a death could arise. Which is my guess as to why State Marriage was even considered in the first place.

[RingOfFire]

I don't see it. That can arise with any relationship. If there is no will or trust it's up to the person who alleges they have a claim on the assets to prove it. Otherwise it gets distributed the same way it would for an unmarried person. If the person wants someone else to have it it is their responsibility to make a legal provision to do so.

[Ariesman81]

I agree. In my opinion the government should be nothing more than a records storage facility and arbitrator. But that's kind of what it currently is.
If a wife claims she was married, what proof would she have other than a marriage certificate? And without that certificate and no next of kin, where would the assets go?

[LiamJHayden]

People can eschew legal marriage and live together using regular contracts if they want and as they see fit.

[RingOfFire]

That's a valid point, but doesn't address a lot of the question.

There has been a large movement to force the government to recognize marriages that it previously did not so that those who fit into that category can get the benefits of being married at other peoples' expense (such as reduced taxes for the married people). So while people can do that, what I am talking about is getting the government out of the marriage relationships altogether.

[Sal_Monella]

Marriage is a legal partnership subject to the 14th Amendment. Yes, with a list of conditions

[RingOfFire]

If you are talking about Due Process and Equal Protection, the 14th Amendment does not require the recognition of marriage by the government. It prohibits the government from banning people from forming a relationship they call marriage. There is a difference.

[Sal_Monella]

I would not want any government to classify legal partnerships as marriage in the same stroke. However if two persons were to form a LLC to exempt them from government intrusion or gain certain granted privileges, like tax exemption, I don't oppose it. Like if a widowed grandmother wants to join up with her widowed sister for that purpose.

[Sun_Kim-Ai]

Yes, if you are getting benefits and tax cuts out of it, or citizenship.

[RingOfFire]

But that's just it. You should not be getting those benefits. It is discriminatory against individuals who are not married and forces them to carry more of the tax burden. It also gives the government power over relationships that it should not have.

[dragoblack]

Government shouldn't be involved whatsoever in anyones love lives or marriage, unless the ones involved are below the age of 18 for obvious reasons.

[seeyounexttuesday]

It should not. The last thing I remember about the wedding day is the bureaucrat who signed the piece of paper.

[Hulk30]

in reality it don't our Government just Brainwashed us in to thinkin they got more authority over our marriage's than God

[Smegskull]

The church should have sued the state for copyright over marriage centuries ago.

[Miristheiss]

No, just the church.

[mysteriousNicholas]

@Miristheiss that's intriguing, hmm. Yet nowadays mostly in most western countries, "marriage is a government contract recognised things between two adults blah blah blah*"

[mysteriousNicholas]

@Miristheiss I mean venues celebrants etc or clergy whatever, I just mean more specifically "marriage is regulated or authorised by contracts signed by two consenting adults entered into with the State (or whatever jurisdiction) blah blah legal document signed" blah blah blah - blah 😊

[jimmy2]

Are you kidding that all we would need

[WhiteBoyChill]

Fck no