Should the state be involved in marriages?

[otseng]

Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?

What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?

[Corvus]

The state should not grant marriage and it should not be recognising any privileges. This has the effect of recognising a single interpretation of a cultural insituttion based on tradition and creating separate caste of citizens to which a lot of us are pressured into seeking membership.

[Illyricum]

Well then, who should grant marriages?

[Corvus]

Well then, who should grant marriages?

Anyone. Everyone. No one. What I do not want is a cultural/religious tradition dictated by government. I don't want any benefits to marriage recognised by state. You may get married in the eyes of God, but why does it have to be recognised in the eyes of the law, with accompanying benefits? It doesn't. If it's purely ceremonial, no one can tread on anybody else's toes.

[perspective]

Well then, who should grant marriages?

The question should be: "what is the purpose of granting marriages at all?"

If the primary purpose of granting marriages pertains to religious validation, then the government should have no part in granting marriages. If there is some other purpose, some goal, for granting marriage; that is non-religious; the argument needs to be presented, evaluated, and formed into a written policy - a written policy of just what the federal government hopes to achieve by recognizing marriages. If there is no specify goal of the government sanctioning marriage, then what is the point?

[Bobby]

The state should not grant marriage and it should not be recognising any privileges. This has the effect of recognising a single interpretation of a cultural insituttion based on tradition and creating separate caste of citizens to which a lot of us are pressured into seeking membership.

After considering these comments (as well as your reply to Illyricum) where you mentioned that marriage should be recognized by anyone, everyone and no one. Along with commenting that marriage takes place in the eyes of God....I am left with the impression that you would believe that people should simply move in together and be boyfriend and girlfriend until death do them part. Or maybe they could find a nice Oak tree somewhere and exchange vows that only the two of them recognize, along with their God? Is this roughly how you see it?
I guess I do not understand how or why you would believe the state (or
government) needs to stay out of it. I certainly do not like the government having its nose in everything we citizens do, but we do live in a society, and when it comes to marriage, that society needs to legally recognize the union. Marriage is not just a ceremonial act created for the purpose of religious recognition. It is also to make things legal between two people.
Consider this; how would a divorce take place if the government never recognized the marriage?

[mrmufin]

Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?

If States insist upon being in the marriage business, then no preclusions should be made based upon gender or sexual orientation, else the States should eliminate all benefits associated with being a party named in a civil marriage contract.

What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?

Ideally, none. Though I'm sure that once some sufficiently prestigious persons are compelled to provide damagin testimony abut their spouses, or substantial federal taxes are paid on a sufficiently extravagant anniversary gifts, many married couples will reminisce about the Good Old Days of marriage and all of its subtle, state sanctioned benefits.

Regards,
mrmufin

[mrmufin]

I am left with the impression that you would believe that people should simply move in together and be boyfriend and girlfriend until death do them part.

Kinda like myself and the very lovely msmufin.

Or maybe they could find a nice Oak tree somewhere and exchange vows that only the two of them recognize, along with their God? Is this roughly how you see it?

Sure. Or in a church in the company of friends and family. Or on a cruise. Or while skydiving. Or... The ceremonial and traditional aspects of marriage have nothing to do with the civil recognition and associated benefits of marriage provided by the States.

I guess I do not understand how or why you would believe the state (or
government) needs to stay out of it. I certainly do not like the government having its nose in everything we citizens do, but we do live in a society, and when it comes to marriage, that society needs to legally recognize the union.

Perhaps the States should stay out of the marriage business because... uh, well, because it's really none of their damn business. Society places no limitations on adults having loving, meaningful, committed relationships, nor procreating, nor cohabitating, nor having consensual sexual encounters. Why should society (or the States) provide any benefits to those who feel it necessary or worthwhile to shore up their relationship with a marriage certificate?

Marriage is not just a ceremonial act created for the purpose of religious recognition. It is also to make things legal between two people.

What is made legal by marriage? No laws are being violated by msmufin and I cohabitating and maintaining a loving, trusting, committed, and sexual relationship. Nor does the civil contract of marriage assure that its named parties have any love, trust, commitment and/or sexual components in their personal relationship.

Consider this; how would a divorce take place if the government never recognized the marriage?

Perhaps under the old Oak tree?

Regards,
mrmufin

[Corvus]

The state should not grant marriage and it should not be recognising any privileges. This has the effect of recognising a single interpretation of a cultural insituttion based on tradition and creating separate caste of citizens to which a lot of us are pressured into seeking membership.

After considering these comments (as well as your reply to Illyricum) where you mentioned that marriage should be recognized by anyone, everyone and no one. Along with commenting that marriage takes place in the eyes of God....I am left with the impression that you would believe that people should simply move in together and be boyfriend and girlfriend until death do them part. Or maybe they could find a nice Oak tree somewhere and exchange vows that only the two of them recognize, along with their God? Is this roughly how you see it?
I guess I do not understand how or why you would believe the state (or
government) needs to stay out of it. I certainly do not like the government having its nose in everything we citizens do, but we do live in a society, and when it comes to marriage, that society needs to legally recognize the union. Marriage is not just a ceremonial act created for the purpose of religious recognition. It is also to make things legal between two people.
Consider this; how would a divorce take place if the government never recognized the marriage?

Mrmuffin's responses easily explain the direction I am going with this. I think I love him, but unfortunately he is already in a monogamous relationship with a woman. If he wasn't, a long period of courtship would ensue, then, naturally, he would be mine, and we can live together happily. If we don't work out, we can split up without a fuss and with a lot of tears. ::blows mrmuffin a kiss::

In Australia we have a thing called de facto relationships. A de facto relationship is the term used to describe the relationship between a man and woman who live together as husband and wife although they are not legally married. In some circumstances the term can include same sex couples. Parental responsibilities are the same in a de facto relationship as in a marriage. A marriage is simply a contract. Most people can do without a contract in order to be in love, have children and be responsible for them.

Please explain what legal complications may arise from never having a marriage contract.

[mrmufin]

I think I love him, but unfortunately he is already in a monogamous relationship with a woman.

Not so fast; there's still plenty about me to dislike. Did I actually say monogamous?

If he wasn't, a long period of courtship would ensue, then, naturally, he would be mine, and we can live together happily. If we don't work out, we can split up without a fuss and with a lot of tears. ::blows mrmuffin a kiss::

It's probably not a good idea to spend too much time romantacizing about highly improbable scenarios.

In Australia we have a thing called de facto relationships. A de facto relationship is the term used to describe the relationship between a man and woman who live together as husband and wife although they are not legally married. In some circumstances the term can include same sex couples. Parental responsibilities are the same in a de facto relationship as in a marriage.

In the US, some of the States recognize a similar status, known as "common law" marriage. Apart from not being recognized by all the States, I'm uncertain about the other legal aspects of common law marriages, e.g. compulsory witness testimony, tax filing, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc. I do know that I live in a State where common law marriages are not recognized.

A marriage is simply a contract. Most people can do without a contract in order to be in love, have children and be responsible for them.

Yep, just a contract, indeed. In our 14+ years together, the very lovely msmufin has been asked at least once (and mildly threatened another time) for her hand in marriage, all for purely economic reasons. Unlike most American women, She is dead set against being married. Love, trust and commitment are states of mind, not a State sanctions.

Regards,
mrmufin