Who should regulate marriages?

[gabosaurus]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

[Kathianne]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

For many religion plays a most important role in their marriages, raising of children, in their lives. Perhaps none of those apply to you, but the rights are there for those that choose differently.

[gabosaurus]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

[hjmick]

Ah shit.

I agree with Gabs on somethinng...

[ConHog]

Ah shit.

I agree with Gabs on somethinng...

I keep trying to tell yall Gabs is not a liberal LOL

[ConHog]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

That's the part that trips self labeled "conservatives" up. They don't believe in freedom. They believe in THEIR freedom.

homosexuality is disgusting. I support the right of free Americans to be disgusting as long as they are not harming other people.

[Robert A Whit]

That's the part that trips self labeled "conservatives" up. They don't believe in freedom. They believe in THEIR freedom.

homosexuality is disgusting. I support the right of free Americans to be disgusting as long as they are not harming other people.

I happen to believe that government should butt out of marriage if we mean the Federal Government. Since states have powers that the Feds lack, it depends on the constitution of each state.

I have no idea why the state constitutions are virtually never brought up.

She is carping over what some states have decided to do. But as to the Feds, I also say butt the hell out.

As you said, it also means no tax benefits by the Feds. No federal laws of any type about marriage. The Feds do not pass out rights to a certain religion yet some claim marriage is religion too but seem to want the Feds involved in a rite they claim is religion.

I am so puzzled by Gabby. She first says keep govertnment out but reverses herself by saying they need to sanction it. She has to pick one view or some other.

[ConHog]

I happen to believe that government should butt out of marriage if we mean the Federal Government. Since states have powers that the Feds lack, it depends on the constitution of each state.

I have no idea why the state constitutions are virtually never brought up.

She is carping over what some states have decided to do. But as to the Feds, I also say butt the hell out.

As you said, it also means no tax benefits by the Feds. No federal laws of any type about marriage. The Feds do not pass out rights to a certain religion yet some claim marriage is religion too but seem to want the Feds involved in a rite they claim is religion.

I am so puzzled by Gabby. She first says keep govertnment out but reverses herself by saying they need to sanction it. She has to pick one view or some other.

let me be clear. When I say government out, I mean ALL government out. it's not a governmental matter at all. Not federal, not state, and not local.

OUT OF MARRIAGE and if that means my one exception to my rule about the word marriage never being used in a government document meaning a federal law directing that no jurisdiction may pass laws concerning marriage , so be it.

[Robert A Whit]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

Easy, because your premise is to get the Government out of that business.

Logic supplied free of charge.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?

Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.

I was discussing her plan. In a marriage, child support is related to marriage. She calls for the government stepping aside from marriage. And if the children are step children, the law will not force the step dad to pay for their child support. So not saying you are wrong, but I am saying she will not be pleased if the government goes out of the marriage bueiness.

[ConHog]

I was discussing her plan. In a marriage, child support is related to marriage. She calls for the government stepping aside from marriage. And if the children are step children, the law will not force the step dad to pay for their child support. So not saying you are wrong, but I am saying she will not be pleased if the government goes out of the marriage bueiness.

you logic still fails. Family courts don't care about the marital relationship between mother and father when considering the issue of child support.

[Robert A Whit]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

Why should government sanction any marriage? I thought you wanted government out of marriage.

[ConHog]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

How is marriage not a religious matter? Marriage IS a religious institution.

Government out of marriage. THat means out as far as marriage benefits or anything of that matter to.

Civil contracts for those who don't with to be married but want certain contractual protections.

Churches can marry whomever they like (consenting adults of course)

[mundame]

Well. Go back to the basics.

Why marry at all? Africans don't marry; indeed, they mostly do prostitution, if you read about those systems, and the women take care of any resulting children, assuming they or the children survive. Primitives in various areas don't marry in our sense --- Australians, New Guineans, etc.

In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.

Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).

Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.

The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.

Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on. With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer. There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.

So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.

[tailfins]

Well. Go back to the basics.

Why marry at all? Africans don't marry; indeed, they mostly do prostitution, if you read about those systems, and the women take care of any resulting children, assuming they or the children survive. Primitives in various areas don't marry in our sense --- Australians, New Guineans, etc.

In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.

Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).

Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.

The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.

Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on. With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer. There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.

So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.

Marriage has to be a good deal for men or they won't participate. In my case, it was a full time wife (and later mother for the kids) or no deal. I wonder if most men could earn more than the average family if not distracted by other things.