Should marriage be handled by the State at all?

Question

The Constitution clearly states there should be a separation of church and state. Based on what some people say, they believe marriage is a *sacred* institution that is defined in the *Bible* as the union of a man and a woman. To me, that sounds like a lot of church mixing with state.

I think the State should issue certificates for "Civil Unions" to individuals who wish to live together. Regardless of the sex of either partner. The "civil union" is for any two people choosing to commit themselves to each other and be recognised by the State as one.

THEN, if a couple wants to get "married", they go to a church and get married. However, they are still recognised by the state as a civil union. So marriages would be handled by the Church, not the State. If the Church thinks it's wrong to marry two men or two women, then they don't have to do it. No debate. That's their perogative.

I know it will never happen. It's just a hypothetical suggestion, but one that would be ideal, i think.

I'm saying Civil Unions would replace marriage in terms of taxes and such. It would look the same to the state as it does now. Insurance benefits, estate benefits, 401k, taxes, and everything else that goes with marriage.

It would just be a new name: Civil Union.

Marriages would be handled by the Church.

I'd really like to see some honest opposition to my proposed idea. Some that is well thought out and makes sense. To me, this is all that makes sense. Try to come up with a reason why my idea isn't good and don't just throw stones at it. I'd like to see an honest opposition that makes sense. :)

Answer 1

I've been saying this for quite a while. The fact is that civil marraige and religious marraige mean different things, and much of the problem (ie debate on gay marraige) stem from the state using a religious term to denote a non-religious action.

Answer 2

Great question, and an interesting solution to the problem. I'd actually would go a little bit further. I'd have the state only issue dependent certificates for tax purposes, such as having children. So not even Civil Unions would be state sponsored, only whatever people want to call it, and with whom (plural if that's their gig) they want to join with. Legally this would not be too hard. Yes, the burden would be on the various individuals to prove they were in financial cohabitation together. I guess the state could revert to "common law marriages" in this instance where if any two people live long enough together and have shared finances and or kids the court could treat them as legally married only in the necessity to divvy thing up. I agree with you the idea of marriage being a spiritual issue. Let peoples actions reflect their beliefs while letting God do the rest.

Answer 3

Why do you ask a question if you're just going to state your opinion as an answer anyway? Furthermore, show me where in the Constitution "separation of church and state" are mentioned. Still looking? You won't find it; it was a later invention of legal scholars. You can get out of that what you want, but a strict constructionist would thusly interpret that there is no mythical wall between politics and religion.

Furthermore, the state already does handle marriage by granting licenses. There is one very important reason for this, can you think of it? Tax purposes. You pay a different tax rate if you are married than you do if you are single, so, as I said, the state already does regulate marriage.

Answer 4

What two consenting people do in their bedroom is none of my damned business. If two people are willing to commit to a relationship then I think they should have all rights and responsibilities thereof. If nothing else, it would be a new source of taxes for Big Brother to use to line its pockets. I think your Civil Union idea is a good one and should be legalized. If I am willing to pay insurance premiums on my partner then that person should have the same health care I have. That would be money for the insurance companies too. More customers=more profit. What's the downside? Less chance of maternity benefits being paid out?

If a church does not wish to recognize such a union then that is up to the church. I fail to see how homosexuals are so evil when one of, if not the oldest christian church on the planet hides child molesting priests by shuffling them from one diocese to another. WTF? I guess it is OK to rape a child but if you find a willing partner you're gonna burn?

Answer 5

I see what you are saying. I can't say I agree with the "Civil Unions" part. I think that marriage is a commitment on a Religious and State (for lack of a better term) level. I think that by taking the marriage out of commitment as a "Civil Union" would do it would take the responsibility out of it.

Anyhow, as far as gay marriages go I really think that this one should be up to the people. Put it on a ballot and keep the Supreme Courts out of it.

Answer 6

I tend to be in agreement with the poster... The marriage definition is used by the state historically for two reasons it seems to me. Estate and taxes. The separate contracts civil union and marriage kind of make since as one being in the eyes of man and state and the other being in the eyes of man and God. I think it would solve the public debate.
I guess this is going to be my next question.... is there a religious or legal difference between being married by a justice of the peace or ship captain versus being married by a representative of the church priest/pastor/reverend/whatever

Answer 7

No. Marriage is a Sacrament. Churches handle Sacraments and it up to churches to decide who can and can't be married. The state should only sanction civil dealings, be they civil unions or otherwise.

Answer 8

The state referred to in "separation of church and state" is the federal government and NOT state as in New York, Maine, etc, etc. In any case your off your rocker on the whole civil union thing. Give it up.

Answer 9

No...the government should get out of the marriage buisness all together. Figure out a way to tax a household or just tax everyone individually.

I don't understand why we need to write down rules about marriage. What like we're going to forget that to procreate we need to people who arnt of the same sex?

Marriage is sacred? Is that why more then 60% of them end in divorce?

And what two guys getting married will somehow hurt your family? Like they're going to break down your door....wearing their wedding tuxs and start having dirty gay sex right in front of your kids and family?

I mean seriously america...grow up.

Answer 10

you need to go back and read about the annexation of Utah.

If man and man can marry, why not polygamy?????why not incestuous marraige??????who are you to tell me who I can love???????

your arguement already states that government has an interest in regulating the contractual joining of two estates into one, what is now called marriage. since the governement has an interest, people will regulate it. 83% of America does not want gay marriage, so persuade them and work throug the legislature.

When you go through the courts, that leaves only two possilbe courses for the will of the people.......amendments to the constitution and/or impeachment of judges who violate the seperation of powers.