Should government have a role in marriage?

[coachTanthony]

Yes they should

No stay out of it

[OlderAndWiser]

If government has a role in divorce, enforcing rights after divorce, and especially rights and obligations regarding children, then government must at least have records of marriages. And perhaps enforce incest laws in not issuing marriage licenses to couples within the prohibited degree of consanguinity.

[lightbulb27]

wouldn't it be fun if govt officials gave guidance during the marriage. Dids chdckups and such.

[JSkye]

Marriage is easy, divorce is hard. Because the government is involved, divorce is also expensive. It really isn't the government's business to monitor, enforce, and restrict/disqualify marriage.

[purplepoppy]

Marriage is how the government controls you. They like people in nice neat sets of two. It's a bit like the buddy system in nursery school.

[Unit1]

"Love you"

"I love you too"

"You know what? Let's tell the government and society about it by getting married"

Businesses and Papa Government:

That's ewww!

[Unit1]

I just remembered how Andrew Tate has said in his first Christmas message video "Nothing is gayer than getting married to a chick" 😆

[BCRanger10]

Government does have some legitimate stake in marriage. From marriage and family come neighborhoods, neighborhoods produce towns and cities, towns and cities produce states, provinces, and territories, and from those come nations. And you obviously need a government of some sort to enforce laws, defend values, and help to maintain cultural norms.

If it's something the effects the size, stability, and to a certain extent, the moral fabric of a given society, governing bodies do have some claim in that most basic framework of society at large, which is marriage and children. It's also for this reason why the government DOES also have a say in matters like abortion and contraception.

[Anonymous]

To a certant degree governments must have a role in Marriage to help enforce its terms and encourage the institution.

But this also opens the institution up to democracy to be corrupted and made pointless, as in fact happened in the west.

In reality we need different kinds of distinctly defined "marriages" so that at least some of them may remain so defined as to retain some kind of propose.

What we have instead is a collectively redefined "word" which has no practical application anymore as a result of its redefinition.

Marriage didn't fall out of favor it simply doesn't exist anymore having been redefined out of any useful propose.

What the law calls "marriage" today is laughably vague and pointless.

[Ladsin2]

If you asked a couple years ago (before Obergefell) I would've said they either shouldn't be involved, or they have to allow the gays to get married. Since then I've become somewhat more conservative. I think that society has a strong interest in the further propagation of the citizenry. For that reason I think the government does have a vested interest in promoting marriage and child bearing. The only tools the government has are 1) force and 2) financial. The force wouldn't work so hot in this scenario, but financial could. So I chose Option A

[Anpu23]

With common law marriage, domestic partnerships and other ways around it. It should just revert back to a religious rite and the stare should just step back away from it all together. Just like baptism.

[PatKirby]

Big daddy gov't already has a role in marriage - before and after. It's a third-party contractee before, and a guarantor after...

[RingOfFire]

No, marriage is a private institution, and government should have no role nor make any distinction between married or unmarried people. It should be completely neutral with respect to marriage. It is none of the government's business.

[bolverk]

As far as I'm concerned the government should have no part in what is essentially something that it between two people, and is of no business of government, you should not need a "marriage licence" if you wish to marry. If I lived in a rural and decided I want to be with someone I would not even consider "Marriage".

[JesseP1nk]

I think they should have a role in marriage. I mean how they enforce the rights you both have? You dont want goverment in your relationship? - Great, dont get married. Otherwise it sounds like i wanna drive a car but i dont wanna follow the traffic rules.

[LiamJHayden]

Marriage should be strictly by contract. And not the "Yeah, I broke the terms, but you still have to give me half." no-fault nonsense.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Only to regulate minimum marriage age, i. e., eighteen. When U. S. marriages were regulated years ago, it involved banning miscegenation, i. e., interracial marriage, which would have been horrible for an older black lad such as I who LOVE buxom blonde ladies.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

Anything the government has a role in doesn’t workout well so if the government has a role in marriages & the marriage fails they should have a role in divorces as well so they can pay for it.

[Friendlybro79]

I said yes because I think marriage should come with some legal parameters around wealth distribution. I don't think it should say who you can or can't marry. So financial regulation around it not regulating who can marry who.

[Chazmatazz269]

In as much as people need to be protected from others, even in marriage, absolutely the government should have rights and responsibilities.

[BadApple69]

Government would like to be in every aspect of our lives and the reality shouldn’t be in any of our lives.

[Miristheiss]

I am married but if I were single I would be willing to date my age, maybe one year older with a youngest age at about 20.

[midnightmoon05]

Do we have a say?
Govt have a say and other control over us. It’s a fact.

[Anonymous]

No, government involvement is the reason marriage is dying because they protect the rights and interests of women but don't do the same for men.

[Wiredone]

They already do. You need a license to get married

[Anonymous]

My polygamist brother in law who wants to marry his 14 year old niece says no.

[msc545]

stay out of it

[NathanDavis]

they already do...

[worldscolide]

No but unfortunately they like to butt in.

[DrPepper12]

ONLY as a registrant of the couples legal union.

[Jamie05rhs]

Honestly, no. It should be run by the church.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes.

[Dina_Melissa19]

no...

[Jltakk]

Nope