Is marriage unconstitutional and discriminatory?

Question

Allow me to explain. I am not advocating outlawing marriage and it would never happen anyway. I just want to open this for discussion and see what others think.

The question is if the practice of the government acknowledging marriage is discrimination. All men are created equal, but married men are treated differently than single men under the laws of our nation such as tax laws and other laws.

The government randomly decided that marriage would be two people, one man one woman. And they are not allowing more than two people or same sex people to have the same rights. This is discrimination and is contrary to our constitution.

In Utah, polygamists are arrested because they marry more than one person. They are all free-thinking individuals of expressing their freedoms and what right does the government have to forbid this?

I understand that this would make tax laws hopelessly complicated to allow polygamy. Also, it would be hard to change society's views.

But does anyone agree?

I'm not saying that noone can get married, just that maybe the government is discriminating against unmarried people or people who do not wish to conform to one man, one woman idea.

Answer 1

I think that it doesn't matter who or how many people you marry, the government should give equal rights to homosexual couples and polygamists. Who are we, or the government, to tell people what is right and wrong?

Answer 2

I see many people claiming mariage had a religious origin. In point of fact the idea that marriage is a Holy Union is comparatively recent, going back no more than 15 or 18 centuries and originating largely in Christianity. Rabbis performed weddings because, as I understand it, originally their function was not simply clergy, they were the lawyers, ,judges, and record keepers of their time. I can't comment knowledgeably about Islam, Hinduism, or Bhuddism.

I do know that among most Pagan societies marriage was considered a civil contract, and was worked out by each couple based on their own situation. Druidic law recognized over a dozen forms, some authorities say double that, including same sex, polygamy, polandary (women with multiple husbands), line marriages, even limited duration marriages with extention options. Also all parties retained full rights to such property as they brought into the wedding, there was no communal property right, so if a poor man married a rich woman and they divorced he was left still a poor man. The same was true in reverse. The marriage laws of this country were based on the marriage laws of England because they were the common custom at the time, the colonists having their main cultural origin from the U.K., as were many other early U.S. laws. It should not be construed that the founding Fathers read the bible and chose to adopt it's principles, that had been forced on Europe by the Christian churches centuries earlier. They, the Founding fathers, were reflecting the popular practices and predjudices of their day, changing only those they objected to about England, such as an official State Church like the Church of England, hence the First ammendment, and why it's a mistake to say this was founded as a Christian Nation. As to the tax laws I, for one, think they are hopelessly complicated already.

Answer 3

First of all, marriage began as a religious sacrament. This is where the government probably made its first misstep by adopting a religious term for use under law. If I had my way, all people who were to be joined would get a certificate of civil union from the local town hall. After that, you could have a marriage in a church, be joined by a Justice of the Peace or whatever. That would put an end to the problem of equal protection under the law.

Secondly, I don't think that limitations should be set on adult relationships. If two or members of the same sex or opposite sexes want to be joined, so be it. My only concern in this regard is that all parties are informed and freely consent to the arrangement. I think that bigamy should be prosecutable if there has been deceit or coercion by one or more of the people involved.

As to whether the laws regarding taxation are discriminatory, all laws are discriminatory. Society through its law making bodies decides what behaviors it wants to encourage and discourage, this is the essence of discrimination. Certain types of discrimination have been disallowed under our societal rules these include but are not limited to discrimination by: race, creed, national origin and sex or sexual orientation.

Answer 4

the equal protection clause of the constitution does NOT say that the government has to treat everyone equally.

it only says that the government must have a good reason for treating someone differently than another. the strength of the reason depends on the type of different treatment.

for example, if the government treats two people differently because one is black and one is white, the government must have an extremely strong reason. if the government treats two people differently because one is male and one is female, the government must have a moderately strong reason. if the government treats two people that are not in a "protected class" differently, the government must only have _a_ reason - pretextual, misguided, or wrong-headed, so long as it's a reason.

marital status falls only within the "rational basis" (the "_a_ reason" category). if the legislature thinks that heterosexual marriages are more stable than homosexual marriages, then that is a rational basis - whether right or wrong, it is a reason - and there is no unconstitutional discrimination.

so the equal protection clause just don't work for your argument. sorry.

Answer 5

Your government didn't "randomly" decide that marriage would be between two people of opposite sex. That was the tradition before your government was founded, as can be found in England's common law. I believe Lord Someone or other defined it ages ago as "the union, entered into voluntarily, between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others" or something to that effect, and there has probably been some similar decision in your own country. This isn't random, it reflects the values of society.
Those values are, of course, wrong, archaic, and very much discriminatory. But if the majority of people want to keep them then that's what has to be done. It's called democracy.

Answer 6

Marriage is a social contract , made for the purpose of establishing the Family , which is the basic social unit -- families together making the clan/community , clans forming the village ...and so on . Thus , it is an important Institution of Society,which is why it is recognised by the State as well as Religion .
Now, the main purpose of marriage being the constitution of the family , & providing a safe , secure , nurturing environment for children , who are the future of the society , & thus , of the State , it is important that the institution of marriage not be tampered with , & entered into , by only those persons who have this purpose in mind , & think they can endeavor to strive towards it . As for the rest , they can follow whatever mode of living that suits their purpose best -- only they need not call it Marriage .

Answer 7

I think I've answered this topic before. But let me just share my views again.
Marriage is ordained of God. What this means is man is not good or complete without the woman in God and vice-versa. Man is to be married to a woman not to another man or a woman to another woman. This is so that man may fulfill the end of his creation which is to procreate its kind. Same sex marriage is not in agreement with the natural course of things and therefore a deviation and an abomination. It is in no way discriminatory because marriage of the same sex in not a consideration under God's law and under man's law.
Marriage is a social contract entered into between the a man and a woman through their own will and choice. The ritual in marriage is just to solemnize the union in front of witnesses. The officiator is there to pronounce it as legally and lawfully binding between the two contracting parties. This is provided under the constitution. A constitution declared to be inspired by divine providence.
Polygamy in Utah is illegal and prosecuted when caught. This practice is attributed to a small reorganized sect called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which follows a different leadership and philosophy. This group is different from that established in Salt Lake City.

Answer 8

It really depends on what you consider to be marriage. The type of marriege that you are refering to is the type that is recognized by the United States government. This is a legally binding contract that allows the couple to have tax cuts and also puts them under a system of laws that will regulate the dividing up of stuff and custody of children in the event of a divorce.
The government doesn't have laws against any couple or group of adults who want to live together, and do whatever they want in their own bedroom.
To get married under the government no ceremony is required, only a peice of documentation with signatures.
I think holy matrimony is something much more beatiful than that.

Answer 9

Well, one way marriage could be unconstitutional that you didn't mention is that . .. marriage is a religious institution, therefore, the government should have nothing to do with it. It's between the person and their church, and none of the government's business.

About the government randomly deciding it was a man and a woman, uh . .. read your Bible. The Government didn't decide marriage is between a man and a woman, God did.

Polygamy: Well, if a religion believes in that, then members of that religion have a right to practice that don't they? If the government sticks its head in their business it's violating the separation of church and state.

But if we lived THAT WAY, then what if there was a religion that believed in sacrificing 12 year old girls every Saturday at 3:30 pm? The government wouldn't have a right to stop them??????

I guess it's the government's job to enforce societal norms regardless of what religion somebody is.

Answer 10

The problem is more easily stated as follows: If there is a seperation of church and state, why does the government regulate marriage which is a wholy religious covenant. The answer is because it creates a huge stream of income for local and state governments, not to mention family lawyers. Based on the seperation of church and state the government should have nothing to say about who marries who, the church should dictate that. Ah, but theres the rub. Another group of lawyers, lets call them the ACLU, would sue any church to allow marriage of any type within its denomination if it were not for the protections of a larger governing body. So, in short your damned if you do and damned if you dont. Blame the lawyers not the religion.

Answer 11

True, marriage should be the domain of the church not government. The so-called marriage penalty tax simply morphed into the singles penalty tax. Never mind that married people get and use way more government services. Can you name a government service geared toward singles? Marriage reveals one of the ugly truths about America. Freedom of religion is a farce in this country. Freedom of religion, here, means freedom to practice a narrow interpretation of Christianity and anything else is discouraged or outright illegal. And yes, I agree with you. It is not in the spirit of the Constitution.