Government-Issued Licenses

[Delta4Embassy]

I can see the logic behind government issueing hunting, fishing licenses to protect supplies of exploting resources, driver's licenses to protect public safety, even library cards, but what business is it of the government to grant a marriage license?

In a time when the government allowing gay marriages (by way of granting such licenses, can have a strictly religious wedding sans license often enough, some require the government one as well but some don't) is a big issue hasn't anyone asked if marriage is a sacred institution and strictly a religious matter and rite, why are we even bothering to ask the government in thw first place?

I realize there are hundreds of legal modifications involved when married, but aside from that, if marriage is a religious ceremony shouldn't the government not be involved with it at all? Isn't it being so breaking the 1st Amendment by respecting an establishment of religion?

 

[WinterBorn]

I can see the logic behind government issueing hunting, fishing licenses to protect supplies of exploting resources, driver's licenses to protect public safety, even library cards, but what business is it of the government to grant a marriage license?

In a time when the government allowing gay marriages (by way of granting such licenses, can have a strictly religious wedding sans license often enough, some require the government one as well but some don't) is a big issue hasn't anyone asked if marriage is a sacred institution and strictly a religious matter and rite, why are we even bothering to ask the government in thw first place?

I realize there are hundreds of legal modifications involved when married, but aside from that, if marriage is a religious ceremony shouldn't the government not be involved with it at all? Isn't it being so breaking the 1st Amendment by respecting an establishment of religion?

I think the gov't should not be involved in the marriage business at all. Perhaps if they must licence something, have it be a civil union. And have the licence for the civil union be the basis for all of the benefits married people currently enjoy. I'd even vote for grandfathering in all the currently married people.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I wonder if the whole objection to gay marriage isn't a sin-issue stemming from religion so much as a way of inhibiting gay couples from economic prosperity? Since there's ike 1400 economic adjustments when married and legal rights, maybe trying to prevent gays from marrying is more about 'keeping em down?'

 

[DGS49]

As we say here in Steeler Country, "Yins are really, really dumb!"

State marriage laws are a longstanding attempt by the state to protect the interests of wives and children, whose interests cannot be protected in any other way. Recent amendments to marriage laws have sought to adjust the protections in light of cultural changes, but there was - and remains - very good reasons for the state to be involved in marriage.

In the traditional marriage paradigm, the dual purposes of the marriage were to bring the husband and wife together in either a "loving" or otherwise stable (monogamous) relationship, and to produce children, who would be provided for until they were financially emancipated. Without state laws to back up the traditional obligations the wives and children could often be left destitute, even when a departing husband/father (either by divorce, abandonment, or death) had the means to provide for them.

State laws demanded that the departing husband provide for the wife (who tradiitonally did not work outside the home after marriage) and children, whether he wanted to or not. They ensured that the wife and children be provided for in the husband's will, even if the dead husband desired otherwise; the wife could elect against the will and (generally - each state differs) take the share she would have gotten had the husband died intestate (without a will).

The state should get out of the marriage business? Really, really dumb.

 

[WinterBorn]

As we say here in Steeler Country, "Yins are really, really dumb!"

State marriage laws are a longstanding attempt by the state to protect the interests of wives and children, whose interests cannot be protected in any other way. Recent amendments to marriage laws have sought to adjust the protections in light of cultural changes, but there was - and remains - very good reasons for the state to be involved in marriage.

In the traditional marriage paradigm, the dual purposes of the marriage were to bring the husband and wife together in either a "loving" or otherwise stable (monogamous) relationship, and to produce children, who would be provided for until they were financially emancipated. Without state laws to back up the traditional obligations the wives and children could often be left destitute, even when a departing husband/father (either by divorce, abandonment, or death) had the means to provide for them.

State laws demanded that the departing husband provide for the wife (who tradiitonally did not work outside the home after marriage) and children, whether he wanted to or not. They ensured that the wife and children be provided for in the husband's will, even if the dead husband desired otherwise; the wife could elect against the will and (generally - each state differs) take the share she would have gotten had the husband died intestate (without a will).

The state should get out of the marriage business? Really, really dumb.

If marriage is, indeed, a longstanding religious institution, as many have claimed, then the state has no business being involved.

Also, your claim is bogus. There are plenty of examples of modern couples living together, without ever getting married, and the courts awarding monetary damages to the woman if he leaves. Also, child support no longer relies on marriage in any way. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he can be forced to pay child support.

So before you call anyone else dumb, you might want to rethink your position and the results of modern laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if the whole objection to gay marriage isn't a sin-issue stemming from religion so much as a way of inhibiting gay couples from economic prosperity? Since there's ike 1400 economic adjustments when married and legal rights, maybe trying to prevent gays from marrying is more about 'keeping em down?'

Or, maybe, some people have a sincere belief that marriage is a religious rite.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Marriage may well be religious in nature, but living together, having sex and making children likely came well before religion came along and called that "marriage." Plus, there's more religions out there than just Christianity yet that's the majority one being used to pass judgements on what a marriage should consist of. Human animal has invented some 25,000 discrete religions to date. Using any 1 to define marriage is ridiculous and unfair.

 

[DGS49]

Obviously, the answer is to accept the fact that the "marriage" created by the State and the "marriage" created by a religious institution are two different things, and should be treated as such. Any couple should consider whether to enter into either marriage institution, both, or neither.

 

[WinterBorn]

Obviously, the answer is to accept the fact that the "marriage" created by the State and the "marriage" created by a religious institution are two different things, and should be treated as such. Any couple should consider whether to enter into either marriage institution, both, or neither.

That is fine with me. Let the state license civil unions. And that will be the basis for all the federal, state and local gov't benefits. And since no religion is involved here, gay civil unions will be recognized just like all other civil unions. Let religions manage marriages, and whether gay marriage is allowed will be up to each religion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Obviously, the answer is to accept the fact that the "marriage" created by the State and the "marriage" created by a religious institution are two different things, and should be treated as such. Any couple should consider whether to enter into either marriage institution, both, or neither.

That is fine with me. Let the state license civil unions. And that will be the basis for all the federal, state and local gov't benefits. And since no religion is involved here, gay civil unions will be recognized just like all other civil unions. Let religions manage marriages, and whether gay marriage is allowed will be up to each religion.

No.

There is absolutely zero reason that the arguments against gay marriage or anything else would suddenly change because you call it something different. The fact is they already are different and one has exactly zero to do with the other.

The idea that we need to call it a civil union because of some people religious feelings is just silly and sad. I cannot endorse all this hoopla over a name change.

 

[FA_Q2]

I can see the logic behind government issueing hunting, fishing licenses to protect supplies of exploiting resources, driver's licenses to protect public safety, even library cards, but what business is it of the government to grant a marriage license?

In a time when the government allowing gay marriages (by way of granting such licenses, can have a strictly religious wedding sans license often enough, some require the government one as well but some don't) is a big issue hasn't anyone asked if marriage is a sacred institution and strictly a religious matter and rite, why are we even bothering to ask the government in thw first place?

I realize there are hundreds of legal modifications involved when married, but aside from that, if marriage is a religious ceremony shouldn't the government not be involved with it at all? Isn't it being so breaking the 1st Amendment by respecting an establishment of religion?

I would agree that the state has absolutely zero business being in the business of personal relationships. It really is not a violation of the first though considering the license is not recognizing any religious rite but rather it is a move for social engineering.

I think the same can be accomplished through simple contract. That is essentially what a marriage is after all but it has a myriad of rules that are attached to it without cause because the state has made it into something it really should not be. There would be no question as to whether 2 men, 2 women, 10 men or any other party can enter into contract with each other - it is clearly within their rights. For some reason though, it becomes an issue when 2 men want to access marriage.

Of course, getting the government out of marriage also means that several advantages would evaporate such as tax breaks. The massive bulk of legal implications though can be handled through contract.