What, exactly, should the government use as standards for marriage?

Question

*We can't use the christian concept, or the concept of any other religion, as the constitution states that the US is not based on christian values and will never establish a national religion.

*We can't use the argument of procreation, because this would mean that anyone who has reproductive abnormalities wouldn't be eligible to marry. Also, this would take away this right from senior citizens who wish to get married even though their bodies are no longer capable of producing children.

So, aside from these common arguments, how should we determine the standards for civil marriage?

Answer 1

I think to start we need to take the word "marriage" out of the equation. There is too much religious baggage associated with that word. Let the governement regulate "unions" and leave the rest (marriages, handfastings, etc) to the appropriate spiritual official.

So, since we are taking religion out... a "union" is basically a contract between two consenting adults. The same basic criteria for being able to enter into any legally binding contract should be used. In fact, it would be nice if folks were required to spell out what they expected in the contract. Heck, I think it would be a good thing for the contract to come up for an annual review - lets dump the divorce courts, if it isn't working just don't sign the renewal contract! ;-)

More seriously - any two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a marriage-like union. Gender, age (once over the age of consent) and procreation abilites shouldn't play a part in determining who is "allowed" to make that choice. The religious beliefs of third parties should not be taken into consideration. It is a legal contract and that is how the goverment should treat it. If certain religions or parishes are against such unions then they can choose not to perform a spiritual union, but the legal one should always be an option.

Answer 2

The standards are well established in many cultures, not just their religions, that it is a man and a woman, and these standards probably predate any existing religions foundation. Procreation is not a standard because you can only test it in retrospect. Yes, there are those for whom, you can determine that there is zero chance of reproduction, but that would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

There is no reason to redefine marriage. It is quite reasonable to create a parallel legal institution that conveys most rights (rights only being reserved where cause is shown) without redefining marriage in the legal sense.

Answer 3

Personally, I thought marriage was a religious ceremony and that Church and State were suppose to be separated. Therefore, why should the government have any say. It should be left up to the church that the couple attends to decide if they should marry. Furthermore if you are a non-religious person, you are only marrying for the purpose of tax breaks and other benefits, this is when it should be referred to as a civil union and not a marriage. Marriage is a state of mind and a legal piece of paper. If two people of legal age want to have religious ceremony (marriage) or a civil-union that is their right.

Answer 4

The government should stay out of it. The only reason to get legally married are a few tax benefits. The rest of the legal rights are obtainable via other methods. The government should just lower taxes, eliminating the desire for government recognized marriage, and being more equitable to all people; and stop messing in moral affairs.

Answer 5

Interestingly enough, the government DOES make laws based on procreation - that's why first cousins, and siblings can't marry - even if they were both fixed (or too old to have babies) the government still wouldn't let them based on procreation principles.

I guess there's just no big political movement for fixed first cousins to be able to marry, so nobody cares.

Answer 6

It would be nice if the government could step out of marriage all together. Leave it as a personal choice, and go from there.

If it were possible, I would like to be able to draw up my own "marriage contract". My partner and I could state exactly what we want... to have our own property (be it mutual or exclusive)... that in the event of death or separation all property, monies, etc are split 50/50... That our children receive all inheritance rights... and anything else we felt was valid.

Oregon Flower... if marriage is ONLY for procreation... then the fact that one cannot reproduce would make them ineligible... too old, barren, any reproductive problems. This was all stated in the original question. =)

Answer 7

the government is obsessed with making laws as the religions are.... if it has nothing to do with life and death situation, or protecting the innocent from the violent... I think governments should mind their own business and stay out of bedrooms and personal affairs... it's time we all move beyond the religious mentality that was forced upon us all for far to long.

Answer 8

You've made complications where it doesn't exist. You know full well that they are only talking about same sex marriages. Not two seniors of the opposite sex and not a couple who have problems bearing children that are of the opposite sex.

This "business" civil union is all that is needed in the courts so the same-sex people can visit in the hospital, get on each others insurance, pass property to one another and get a divorce to divided the possessions accumulated while they were together.

Has absolutely nothing to do with what God has joined together.

Answer 9

Since it's basically incorporating two peoples assets together for a tax break, let's use business principles as far as the government is concerned.

The emotional side is for the people themselves to work out, and don't require any government intervention.

Answer 10

1) Legal adult and able to enter into a legally binding contract
2) Not married to anyone else
3) Not blood related closer than first cousin
4) Mutually consenting

If they could figure out property, insurance, and inheritance rights, I wouldn't even have an issue with polygamous marriages if all parties were mutually consenting.