With our country supposedly based on a clear separation of church and state, how did the term “Legally Married” ever come to be? How did getting married become a process where you have a commitment ceremony AND have to file paperwork with the courts? I understand that we now have certain legal rights and tax effects based on our marriage status. However, shouldn’t it really be based on our partnership status? If there are 2 consenting adults agreeing to partner up in life together, regardless of sex, shouldn’t every partnership have equal legal rights?
2006-11-02 03:07:09 · 10 answers · asked by Sarah 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I appreciate some of the answers referring to why "marriage" needs to be protected. However, isn't it really the legal partnership that needs to be protected? Shouldn't marriage and legal partnership be 2 seperate events?
2006-11-02 03:24:49 · update #1
A "Legal Marriage" and a "spiritual union" are two separate events. A spiritual union is what anyone can have, regardless of gender, race, orientation, etc. There is no law against people entering into spiritual unions. Gay people do it every day. It just happens that many people that enter into spiritual unions also enter into a legally binding marriage. Marriage, in these terms, is not the government condoning anything spiritually, that would be mingling religion with government. State sponsered/approved marriage is based on the government looking out for the interest of the citizens and the government. It is generally argued the state has a rational reason for doing so, e.g. children raised by a father and a mother are better off, which equals less costs through welfare and other systems; also, the states historically want to ensure the growth and continuity of society through births, which can only be done between a man and a woman. There are other reasons, but don't get the spiritual side of a marriage mixed with what happens legally, there is no relation.
2006-11-02 04:05:49 · answer #1 · answered by straightup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can it's? By pronouncing "congratulations, you're now married", I wager. Actually I agree in side. Gay marriages no. Straight marriages no. Legal civil unions sure. Why must the state be taking part in the sort of devout, divisive ritual? Just bin it, and feature the one legally known union be a civil partnership. If you wish to head and feature something rite you wish as good, and get in touch with it marriage, then high-quality, however you would not be a legally viewed married with out additionally getting a civil union. You would do it by way of put up, should you desired, and not using a rite in any respect. All this doing it in man or woman stuff is very historical usual. Quite exceptional, of path, should you wish to, nevertheless it should not be essential, must it? Creating a moment, inferior magnificence of marriage for persons you feel "icky" or something turns out a wee bit... it makes you appear like a bellend, frankly.
2016-09-01 06:03:29 · answer #2 · answered by vandevanter 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all starts with understanding what a "right" is.
A right is a power that the individual has which is independent of any outside party that others are obliged to respect.
You have the power to speak, I'm obliged to let you. I am not obliged to let you shout in my ear, nor am I obliged to listen to what you say.
You do not have the power to get married without there first being someone else to marry, and the status does not even exist as far as a government is concerned until the government defines it. Marriage is not a right for anyone.
Government defines who can drive, who can drink, who can practice many professions. There is no basis for saying that government cannot define marriage, and just because you don't agree with the legal age to drive doesn't mean government can't set it there.
They are not saying two people cannot voluntarily live their lives together. They are just refusing to define it as "marriage" with all of the ramifications of their relationship to the government that it entails.
Anyway, it all starts because people are totally confused about the difference between a "right" and a "privilege". You have the right to live how you want to. You don't have the right to demand that the situation be given the same privileges as one that is different.
2006-11-02 03:27:34 · answer #3 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a legally married couple, you are entitled to tax credits, life insurance policies, medical insurance and Im sure some other things Im not mentioning. I agree that regardless of sex, you should be able to legally marry. it shouldnt be up to the government to monitor our moral standards on what they even think as a moral issue. But if a couple is simply 'together', who would define the marriage? Some couples are one sided, would a woman who loves a man more than he loves her be able to claim they are married when he doesnt wish it?
2006-11-02 03:13:32 · answer #4 · answered by JC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So that one does not take advantage of another. In muslim countires, the husband has to utter the word "talaq" which means divorce 3 times in a row. THAT'S IT and they are divorced weather the wife wants it or not.
and the woman is not allowed to divorce, only man has that right.
He does not even have to pay her allimoney and will take away her children. Leagally married protects both parties and makes sure there is fairness in marriage or after divorce.
2006-11-02 03:14:11 · answer #5 · answered by Centered 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, not according to President Bush, right now.Only heterosexuals are allowed to have a legal marriage and take all the benefits that comes from marriage.
We can only have true separation of church and state when it benefits the government, I think.
2006-11-02 03:10:09 · answer #6 · answered by momofmodi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only (or mainly) in Christianity is marriage a sacrament. In other religious and civil laws it's a contract.
That's why it's a legal issue.
There are different kinds of marriages: civil, religious, common-law, customary; proxy, polygamous, even postumous (French Civil Code, art. 171). All depend on the law for recognition.
2006-11-02 03:09:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, technically, they can have a "civil union" which gives them some of the rights married people get. It gives them most of the tax and property rights, but not some of the personal ones (ie emergency room visitation).
2006-11-02 03:10:12 · answer #8 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because pervert marriage is unhealthy for society. The family is what makes a society.
2006-11-02 03:09:48 · answer #9 · answered by profile image 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because big brother likes butting his head into religious matters, they forget seperation of church and state applies to them to.
2006-11-02 03:11:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋