Should government recognize marriage? Why or why not?

Question

Should marriage be strictly a religious ceremony? Or should the government be involved (federal AND state)?

If it is for contractual reasons, should gays be disallowed from entering into contracts?

Answer 1

The concept of the religious/philosophical/emotional part of
marriage should be separated from the legal ramifications of
all the goodies that go in a civil union.

The state has a vested interest in people pairing off to
take care of each other, and there perhaps should be
minor tax incentives to do so. Certainly, the state should
recognize that one person should be able to choose who
their "next of kin" should be - that is, who gets called to
sign to consent to medical care if someone is unconscious,
etc.

I believe that that contract, currently called "civil union"
should be available everywhere in the US.

I believe that religions or any other group of people should
be free to have ceremonies, and if they want to use the
word "marriage" in them, well, that's up to the group of
people in question.

The flip side of this is that if a group of people wants to
belong to a religion, but fail that religion's holdings, that
that is purely an issue for those people and that religion -
it has nothing to do with the state.

So if a gay couple wants to get married in a Catholic
church, that is between them and the church and has
NOTHING to do with law - until the police have to come
and break up the fight.

FYI, I am happily married and straight.

Answer 2

Marriage, by definition, has always been a civil matter. You must have a license to marry - that license is issued by a government agency. Beyond that, how a person decides which "ceremony" to use, is a personal choice. Some want to be married in a church, some by a judge or justice of the peace.

The civil and legally recognized "marriage" has nothing to do with religious preference or ceremony. It has to do with obtaining the license and having an authorized person to conduct the marriage....that's all.

Answer 3

Since two atheists can become married, marriage is not always a religious ceremony. It may be to some people but it is not to all people. Also, since marriage has implications on taxes, work benefits, wills and estates, and other legal areas, marriage needs to have a legal recognition for it to be useful. Therefore, some government involvement needs to be part of it. Religion should not be used to dictate the marriage of people who do not share the beliefs of that religion, however.

Answer 4

I think the state - government - has an interest in recognizing families and giving them legal protection and financial benefits.

I think the people, through their legislatures, should do it.

Sexual preference/orientation is not a protected class under federal law, or most state laws. (It is in my state - Tony Soprano land!) So legally the marriage laws do not have to recognize same-sex unions in most of the country, even though banning interracial marriage was deemed illegal. The states with gender-based "equal rights amendments" like Massachusetts or anti-gay discrimination laws (like New Jersey) have more of a legal "arsenal" with which to declare, from the bench, a right to same-sex unions.

Obviously, same-sex marriage prohibitions have been popular across the country.

This could all change with respect to same-sex marriage; "settled" principles of law, even those on the books for decades, do get overturned. Polygamy was legal in many US territories until the US government stamped it out. For better or worse, the rules do change.

Time will tell.

PS Maybe the Geneva Conventions should ban it! :)

Answer 5

Marriage is the union of two estates into one. There are financial and legal issue to consider. Essentially, think of an incorporated partnership. Shareholders are all members of the family unit, which means that heirs as well as partners are owners of the value of the incorporation.

You have the regulation of property, income, as well as the liability of rearing children and many other issues. When you consider the possibility of divorce, or schism of the venture, then regulation is required to terminate the situation.

You could of course make all marriages subject to outside adjudication, determined by the parties prior to the union. However, that does not protect the heirs to the estate as they are rendered moot regarding signatory.

Yes, government does have a place regulating marriage, and the people have an interest in its definition. Not only do you have the complexities of dynamic equity and estate fusion, but you also have the dynamic of heirs and children.

Answer 6

Marriage is a religious ceremony but also serves as a civil union contract agreement also. The civil portion of it needs to be recognized by the federal government as it affords legal rights and standings to both parties of the union.

And yes, although I don't support gay "marriage" on the religious grounds, I DO support civil unions and civil union contracts for gay couples as they also need protections under the law.

Answer 7

As long as people are screaming that marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony then no.

Marriages shouldnt matter to the government anymore then if a person eats hamburgers or tacos.

Everyone should have to get a civil union in order to get any benefits currently given to married people.

To save cash and time, all those married should be granted civil unions as this only makes sense. But from here on out, everyone should have to get a government sanctioned civil unions (gays and str8 people) and that way marriages can be only for men and women and have no importance in the eyes of the law.

I am not gay, but this is clearly unfair for a religious ceremony to have such massive legal repercutions while not allowing ALL members of society to partake in them.

And before you scream gay people can get married as long as they marry people of the opposite sex, flip the script. If ONLY gay people could get married and str8 people could not, would you think thats fair? and that its reasonable to force you to marry someone of your sex in order to gain those benefits? I know i wouldnt marry a man for ANY reasons personally lol.

Answer 8

since marriage was originally a bartering agreement between a father and another man, technically there is nothing religious about it. It was ordained by a minister to get Gods blessing (forgive a father for the sin of selling his daughter for sheep). That is the ONLY religious part to it. So it should be considered a contract only. It should be enforced as any contract would be enforced.
As far as gays marrying the church should have NO say in the ordeal. We as Americans have seperation of church and state, so its not the churches business.

Answer 9

Marriage in church for man and woman.

Civil Union for gays.

Keep the type of ceremony different, but both should have the same government recognition.

Answer 10

Since marriage is a 'contract' yes, it should be recognized/governed by governments...if not, dispostion of assets, etc. and the rights of both parties in a number of pursuits would be difficult to administer.