Why have government recognize marriage?

[mattskramer]

The following is my perspective alone. I did not copy it from anyone or from any web site. It is my own creation but feel free to share it.

Why does government give special rights and privileges to married people that they don’t give to single people? It is because married people supposedly benefit society. Yet, don’t couples benefit society. Some people argue that children provide a benefit to society. Assuming that such is the case, why does it matter whether or not the parents are formally recognized as married? Can’t they simply be a couple that perhaps lives together? Does a special piece of paper (a marriage license / certificate) really mean anything? Conservatives say that it does make a difference.

Why are girlfriends so eager to get married to their boyfriends after they have been together as a couple for so long? Why not continue to live together (in sin according to some people) and not bother with getting married. Could it be that there is a notion of commitment in having a government-recognized marriage?

Bingo! The very same thing may be given as an argument for gay marriage. Some argue that gay couples to not offer any benefit to society. I beg to differ. They provide for a loving home and a place for rising children. What children?!? It would be a place for rising children that were abandoned and surrendered by heterosexuals who failed to stay committed to each other and to the family that they seemed to be creating. Just as government approved marriages for heterosexual couples influence commitment and dedication (ask those impatient women holding on to their boyfriends) government approved marriage for gay couples may influence commitment and dedication. In both cases, it may reduce the likelihood of promiscuity and the spread of STD.

It is just something to think about.

 

[Care4all]

The following is my perspective alone. I did not copy it from anyone or from any web site. It is my own creation but feel free to share it.

Why does government give special rights and privileges to married people that they don’t give to single people?

Married people do not have any more "Rights" than single people have...some with Children MIGHT have some tax breaks that we don't have or get more in a stimulous than those of us without children, but things like these are not "Rights" given to us but more like priviledges or penalties to those of us who do not procreate imo.

It is because married people supposedly benefit society. Yet, don’t couples benefit society. Some people argue that children provide a benefit to society. Assuming that such is the case, why does it matter whether or not the parents are formally recognized as married? Can’t they simply be a couple that perhaps lives together? Does a special piece of paper (a marriage license / certificate) really mean anything? Conservatives say that it does make a difference.

Actually, it is analysis and studies of well known universities and groups on human behavior studies that have come to these conclusions, that a child in a married home, with both mother and father present, for the most part do better in all measures of their studies, in life.

Even children born to single mothers of wealth, where money is never an issue, and in couples where they are hetero, but not married...their children do not score as well in the categories they note, such as finishing hs, going on to college, having no misdemeanors, feeling secure.... etc.

Every study that I have read on it Matt, comes to the same conclusions and that is that children with both parents, male and female, go on to make better for themselves than with children under the diffenent categories of their studies.... I don't think this is persay, a conservative/religious/type thing, but a study of facts that Conservatives or the Religious can claim they were RIGHT on....perhaps?

Why are girlfriends so eager to get married to their boyfriends after they have been together as a couple for so long? Why not continue to live together (in sin according to some people) and not bother with getting married. Could it be that there is a notion of commitment in having a government-recognized marriage?

No, I think if a couple lives together all their lives they are as good as married as the rest of the ones with the piece of paper..... Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel.... a piece of paper would mean nothing to this couple's committment, and rightfully so.... a piece of paper does not necessarily mean a commitment is present, just look at the divorces that follow.

Bingo! The very same thing may be given as an argument for gay marriage. Some argue that gay couples to not offer any benefit to society. I beg to differ. They provide for a loving home and a place for rising children. What children?!? It would be a place for rising children that were abandoned and surrendered by heterosexuals who failed to stay committed to each other and to the family that they seemed to be creating.

I know more Gay couples with adopted children than Barren married couples that were looking to adopt....maybe i am just unfamiliar with the statistics on this, but there hasn't been any evidence that I have seen that shows gay couples having some sort of obstacle getting in their way of adopting children in to their loving home?

Just as government approved marriages for heterosexual couples influence commitment and dedication (ask those impatient women holding on to their boyfriends) government approved marriage for gay couples may influence commitment and dedication. In both cases, it may reduce the likelihood of promiscuity and the spread of STD.

there is nothing getting in the way of Gay couples being monogomous with eachother, a piece of paper does not make this happen Matt.... it will not reduce the cases of std's or infidelity among the couples...this commitment that you speak about MUST BE THERE LONG BEFORE the marriage takes place, or the marriage should NEVER take place Matt, that is how it works, or SHOULD work.

It is just something to think about.

Yes, it is something to think about....

You see, marriage was not something the government created to make couples commit to eachother....marriage already existed, it was just something to tax through gvt licenses required and a way to keep track of their female citizens who lost their maiden names when marrying, I would suppose...

The tax write off's for kids came much later and are still being created daily, as we speak it seems, another child tax credit is being devised.....but these do not discriminate against singles with Children, I don't believe?

Care

 

[jillian]

Marriage is a legal construct because the state of matrimony conveys certain rights...property rights; inheritance rights; etc...

the whole bit about marriage being some type of holy union or function of love is a relatively recent invention. it has always been an economic arrangement. that's why arranged marriages occur in certain societies.

 

[Paulie]

Married couples buy houses, multiple cars, go on vacations, have kids and buy diapers and formula, etc.

Not that single people don't do those things too, but the family structure is one that keeps the economic wheels turning and the market balanced and thriving.

I have no problem with government offering incentive for stability.

Where I part ways, is when government feels compelled to legislate mandates based on it. It's no business of the government's who one chooses to marry. I don't agree with homosexuality, but who am I to tell someone they can't partake in it? I don't have to be affected by it if I simply ignore it and worry about my OWN life. And gay couples offer the same thing to the economy as straight couples. The same things I mentioned above.

If homosexuality is really killing our society, then people are already too far gone emotionally anyway. Nothing has to bother you personally, that you can simply ignore.

 

[mattskramer]

Married people do not have any more "Rights" than single people have...some with Children MIGHT have some tax breaks that we don't have or get more in a stimulus than those of us without children, but things like these are not "Rights" given to us but more like priviledges or penalties to those of us who do not procreate imo.

There are stimuli for marriage outside of those having to do with children. According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

No, I think if a couple lives together all their lives they are as good as married as the rest of the ones with the piece of paper.....

Not if it involves couples of the same sex.

Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel.... a piece of paper would mean nothing to this couple's committment, and rightfully so.... a piece of paper does not necessarily mean a commitment is present, just look at the divorces that follow.

Would breaks-ups be more likely if there were no formal government-recognized marriages? If not, then why do people want to get married? If a piece of paper makes so little difference, why have it?

 

[Care4all]

There are stimuli for marriage outside of those having to do with children. According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits



Not if it involves couples of the same sex.



Would breaks-ups be more likely if there were no formal government-recognized marriages? If not, then why do people want to get married? If a piece of paper makes so little difference, why have it?

well, matt....YOU did not say this the first time around....you implied that same sex couples wanted their commitment to be accepted....and implied that it took a gvt legal marriage to make these guys really commit to eachother in a loving manner, and that it would even reduce std's etc.....

this is what i responded to....

i did not know you wanted to focus on the monitary and other benefits by your original post!

care

 

[Zoomie1980]

Marriage is a legal construct because the state of matrimony conveys certain rights...property rights; inheritance rights; etc...

the whole bit about marriage being some type of holy union or function of love is a relatively recent invention. it has always been an economic arrangement. that's why arranged marriages occur in certain societies.

Pretty much accurate. Marriage in an emotional context is a fairly modern contrivance. Gay couples (my sister and partner are one...) can gain mostly the same level of legal protections under marriage, but it takes a lot of work and numerous legal instruments to get there, especially in a conservative state like Texas. Marriage is simply a convenient way to COMBINE all these instruments under one single umbrella.

Government has no business being involved in the moral arena. That's for religion. Simple civil unions is all government should have a vested interest in. Let the religious folks squabble about what is and is not "marriage".

 

[jillian]

Pretty much accurate. Marriage in an emotional context is a fairly modern contrivance. Gay couples (my sister and partner are one...) can gain mostly the same level of legal protections under marriage, but it takes a lot of work and numerous legal instruments to get there, especially in a conservative state like Texas. Marriage is simply a convenient way to COMBINE all these instruments under one single umbrella.

Government has no business being involved in the moral arena. That's for religion. Simple civil unions is all government should have a vested interest in. Let the religious folks squabble about what is and is not "marriage".

Can I get an AMEN, brothers and sisters!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can I get an AMEN, brothers and sisters!

I too have come to this conclusion. Government should just issue civil Union certificates. Move all the legal Mumbo Jumbo to that. Let religion decide who to " marry" No more squabble over marriage and who can and can not. No more worry about one State refusing to recognize the legal documents of another.

 

[jillian]

I too have come to this conclusion. Government should just issue civil Union certificates. Move all the legal Mumbo Jumbo to that. Let religion decide who to " marry" No more squabble over marriage and who can and can not. No more worry about one State refusing to recognize the legal documents of another.

Exactly.

But about that not recognizing legal documents issue, this really shouldn't be an issue because of:

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

So once churches/synagogues/mosques, etc, can marry or not marry who they want and the state does he civil unions, I don't see any problems.... but that means this really has to stop being made an electoral issue.

 

[Care4all]

Can I get an AMEN, brothers and sisters!

Yes, you can get an Amen from me on that too...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly.

But about that not recognizing legal documents issue, this really shouldn't be an issue because of:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

So once churches/synagogues/mosques, etc, can marry or not marry who they want and the state does he civil unions, I don't see any problems.... but that means this really has to stop being made an electoral issue.

The problem is there were several moves after Mass made legal Gay marriage to ALLOW States to ignore the Marriages from a State they disagreed with. That some legislator would even suggest that is ignorant. As you pointed out the Constitution is clear on legal documents.

Having the State go to Domestic Unions is a compromise that takes from and gives to all sides. It solves the problem without picking sides.

 

[Dogger]

You do realize that if your solution is adopted, the crazies will cite it as proof that marriage has been destroyed.

Won't that just take us back to square one?

 

[Gungnir]

Sort of like how if we let there be instructed prayer in school there will be Muezzins heard in Dearborn, Michigan yet if we continue to keep it a private matter people complain of anti-Christian sentiment?

 

[MsWikia]

The following is my perspective alone. I did not copy it from anyone or from any web site. It is my own creation but feel free to share it.

Why does government give special rights and privileges to married people that they don’t give to single people? It is because married people supposedly benefit society. Yet, don’t couples benefit society. Some people argue that children provide a benefit to society. Assuming that such is the case, why does it matter whether or not the parents are formally recognized as married? Can’t they simply be a couple that perhaps lives together? Does a special piece of paper (a marriage license / certificate) really mean anything? Conservatives say that it does make a difference.

Why are girlfriends so eager to get married to their boyfriends after they have been together as a couple for so long? Why not continue to live together (in sin according to some people) and not bother with getting married. Could it be that there is a notion of commitment in having a government-recognized marriage?

Bingo! The very same thing may be given as an argument for gay marriage. Some argue that gay couples to not offer any benefit to society. I beg to differ. They provide for a loving home and a place for rising children. What children?!? It would be a place for rising children that were abandoned and surrendered by heterosexuals who failed to stay committed to each other and to the family that they seemed to be creating. Just as government approved marriages for heterosexual couples influence commitment and dedication (ask those impatient women holding on to their boyfriends) government approved marriage for gay couples may influence commitment and dedication. In both cases, it may reduce the likelihood of promiscuity and the spread of STD.

It is just something to think about.

IMO marriage revolves around a Man and a Woman making a committment to God, so the idea of a gay marriage makes no sense. However, I do think the term marriage is wrong for what you are talking about, a better term would be a civil union, a legally recognized union. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities would apply.
__________________

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, it is something to think about....

You see, marriage was not something the government created to make couples commit to eachother....marriage already existed, it was just something to tax through gvt licenses required and a way to keep track of their female citizens who lost their maiden names when marrying, I would suppose...

The tax write off's for kids came much later and are still being created daily, as we speak it seems, another child tax credit is being devised.....but these do not discriminate against singles with Children, I don't believe?

Care

ACtually, marriage is a legal construct because the government needed a way to keep track of its population, to know how many there were, and where they reside. Gathering once every so often for a census just wasn't a real effective way of determining the population, and people needed to be able to look at records and see who was father to whom, what families were connected, etc.

 

[jillian]

IMO marriage revolves around a Man and a Woman making a committment to God, so the idea of a gay marriage makes no sense. However, I do think the term marriage is wrong for what you are talking about, a better term would be a civil union, a legally recognized union. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities would apply.
__________________

Had nothing to do with G-d. Marriage had to do with property rights.

 

[Glori.B]

You do realize that if your solution is adopted, the crazies will cite it as proof that marriage has been destroyed.

Won't that just take us back to square one?

they could always go with the initial idea of calling them all "civil unions" under the law and then simply just allowing, for the record, a qualifier of the exact nature of each on an individual basis to be recognized by the state...

if the nature of each will be protected equally under the law, then nobody gets hurt, right?

 

[alisty]

Pretty much accurate. Marriage in an emotional context is a fairly modern contrivance. Gay couples (my sister and partner are one...) can gain mostly the same level of legal protections under marriage, but it takes a lot of work and numerous legal instruments to get there, especially in a conservative state like Texas. Marriage is simply a convenient way to COMBINE all these instruments under one single umbrella.

Government has no business being involved in the moral arena. That's for religion. Simple civil unions is all government should have a vested interest in. Let the religious folks squabble about what is and is not "marriage".

Zoomie1980, I am not familiar with what legal instruments a couple would have to go through to get the same legal protections. Would you be able to list out some of those so I have a better understanding? I know that Europe does civil marriages for gay couples and most of them seem fine with it, from my understanding, that is. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Oddball]

Why have government recognize marriage?

As a revenue raising scam and as a construct that leads people to believe that they need a gubmint bureaucrat to give them permission, for just about anything and everything they may or may not do in life....Like a good little prole.